Mysteries at the Museum (TV Series 2010– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
20 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Archivists and Anthropologists, Historians and know-it-alls will love this
deideiblueeyez29 July 2014
My dream is to have a job in one of my summary's listed professions. As you can probably tell, I freaking love history. I love everything about it, and what seems to make the present even more closely tied to the past are the artifacts: The clothing, the pieces of wreckage, the bullets, the bones, the letters, manuscripts, paraphernalia... All preserved so that we all may hold a physical remnant of what has occurred before us so that we may study it and perhaps learn from it, or as the show loves to say, "to serve as a reminder..."

That all being said, this show does have a few tiny bumps that I frown at: The one that I find a little grating is the fact that the show sometimes posits a useless question to the audience before commercial break on the possible outcome of some life or death situation in history, when many of us know what happened: I'm not sure if this segment occurred (I haven't seen every episode) but an example that would suffice in paralleling this phenomenon would be Reagan's armored car. He got shot in the chest by a stray bullet that ricocheted off the bullet-proof car from would-be assassin John Hinckley Jr. Most of us who have dabbled in American history, even a quick run-through of the presidents would know that he survived the assassination attempt and was discharged from the hospital after having the bullet removed. But the show, after setting the scene of what was to occur, would ask the audience something like "Will Reagan successfully pull through, or will this assassin accomplish his mission?", or whatever.

These questions at times do help propel the intrigue but for us who know what has already happened, they're kind of moot. But hey, maybe that's a sign that we're more knowledgeable than we realize, ha.

Overall this is a good show to watch late at night. When they have mini- marathons of three, four, five episodes back-to-back-to-back it makes for an entertaining evening. And the experts that are called to showcase the artifacts know their stuff. I recommend this show for any and all American history fanatics, or just a general history fanatic, like me.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Like a sound machine, but really really interesting.
rebekahrox24 December 2016
This is a great show. It is amazing what fascinating little nuggets of history they dig up. Some of the stories are so compelling I am continually amazed that they aren't more well known. Some of them would make great films. I will very often research the stories on my own to get more information. Usually, the portrayals are fairly accurate, although they do emphasize certain aspects and play down (or ignore) others for dramatic purposes.

I usually DVR the show and watch it in bed, preparing to go to sleep. As fascinating as it is, conversely,it has a somnolent affect on me, and I usually have to re watch 2 or even 3 times to get through all of the stories. I think it is partly due to the reliable and unchanging rhythm of the show. they start out each entry the same way: setting the scene with the museum that holds the artifact that will introduce the related story, first mentioning some of the other museum holdings, then describing the physicality of the artifact in question. Then they tell the story with silent actors pantomiming the narration.

The narration itself has its own certain conceits: then never use one word when three will do, and adjectives abound. They never use a simple word, when a fancy one exists. (It's never a book, It's and "ancient tome" . People don't die, they "succumb to injuries"). Another little conceit is the rhetorical question and the use of puns. For example, In the story of the Double Eagle balloon crossing of the Atlantic: "Will their "lofty" ambitions be fulfilled? Will the balloon rise to the occasion? Will a slave that worked as a seamstress trying to get confederate plans to the Union be able to "thread the needle" and sneak past guards? How did a brassiere "boost" a young mother's bank account?" I love it. It's amusing.

Don Wildman, the host, is superb. He has a great tone, and conveys a sense of urgency, when called for, without getting all worked up. And always has this kind of amused inflection. Plus he is very easy on the eyes.

Another thing that is part of the predictable comfortable rhythm is timing and flow. When they finish one story, they immediately start the next one, saving the commercial break until a crucial cliffhanger. After the commercial break, they briefly recap the story and proceed. This is good for fast forwarding through the commercials, or if you doze off during the story, you can get up to speed without having to rewind. I swear, it's the same pattern over and over. It's like waves crashing on a beach. Two other shows that are just as good are Mysteries of the Monument and Mysteries of the Castle.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good show, but could you use artifacts that were ACTUALLY involved?
bja-2819211 June 2021
I love this show, but as others have stated, one of its biggest flaws is how repetitive it is. From the way they describe the objects, to the adjectives used to describe the "sinister" plots or "daring" plans, to the way they film dramatizations of events.

But my BIGGEST problem with the show is that 90% of the time the artifact shown has NOTHING to do with the story told other than being the same object. For example, the story might be about a treasure found at sea, but the artefact will be some random coin in a currency museum that wasn't in that treasure and wasn't even involved at all. It's just a coin similar to what was found. I just finished watching the episode about wine bottles etched with the president's initials using a dentists drill. But the artifact that they use was some random dentist drill from some museum that has never had anything to do with the story. Like this would be interesting if it was the actual drill used, but instead it's just some random drill that happens to be similar to the one used. The show is called "Mysteries at the Museum", not "Mysteries Told with Random Objects at the Museum"
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Spectacular Show
jkylebennett19 June 2019
It's a wonderful program. Don Wildman makes for such a compelling and engaging host. The stories are wonderful to learn about, and the reenactments are entertaining to watch. The series delves deeper into stories from history that have either been forgotten or are lesser known. The stories most often told are about historical events that were not as well heard about or significantly well documented as others, often telling the tales of people who worked in the background of major events to reach an end to an event that took place. The stories told are always based on objects currently located at museums all around the world, giving the stories behind why some more obscure or unusual objects would find themselves at a museum in the first place. For example, one story was told about a celebrities car crash and the mysterious circumstances behind it , based off a piece of wreckage from that crash that's in a museum on display. The series also takes on stories of personal conflicts and events that individual people have experienced, as well as even occasionally tackling supernatural and strange events that took place. It tells these stories through reenactments that Don narrates beautifully. This is a show that really has something for everyone. There are even special episodes that will specifically tackles events like Amelia Earhart's disappearance and the origins of Dracula among other special episodes. This is a great show for any history buff or even casual viewer looking for something that is both informational and entertaining.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
My favorite show!
rdoubleoc23 January 2019
This is definitely my favorite show by far, and has been for years. I seriously hope they never end this show (otherwise I probably wouldn't even watch the Travel Channel), and hope they keep coming up with great stories.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Correction on Vermeer's paintings story.
sromanowa12 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Enjoy watching the show, but I'd like to point out one research error. In the story you have about solving the mystery of Vermeer's photographic-like paintings, you claim that a scientist revealed the truth about Vermeer using the camera obscura to achieve these results, and that this was done in 2002. If that's true, then how is it that I learned about Vermeer using the camera obscura in an art history class in 1978? Not trying to debunk your show, but thought you should know. Still an interesting story, and I'm not going to stop watching the show.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great show
speedracerwon30 December 2019
So if your a history buff you will enjoy this show. However I believe it was cancelled around Sept 2019 and no news on if it was gonna be renewed. I am addicted to this show and I believe have seen every episode. There are lots of interesting facts, and artifacts presented in an interesting way. They use alot of dramatizations and stock footage to bring the story to you in an interesting way. However not all of it directly relates to that story. They may show a different plane when talking about a fire suppression plane they may show a 737 or something but the story is the main idea anyway not the photos. Also they dont always tell the whole story. Normally it's only scratching the surface of the story. Some of the stuff can be a bit wierd and some downright stupid but overall interesting show. I am very disappointed that the travel channel is no longer showing new episodes. All they show is ghost shows and I find them totally ridiculous and unbelievable. It's totally fake and people actually believe that crud. Bring it back please.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Worth a watch, but sometimes odd
eric-wallis31 January 2019
This show is interesting but it is often misleading. They will show an "artifact" like a bullet but the story will be about a Demon Cat. The two have nothing to do with each other!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Correct information
nancyandcecil9 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
On the episode about Mrs. Lincoln seeking a medium after her husband's death and getting a superimposed photo of her deceased husband standing behind her, the narrator said she had lost two sons, when in fact, she had lost three sons. One child died before they entered the white house. Her oldest, Robert, was her only surviving child. I enjoy this. Show immensely and my husband and I watch it as often as possible. I am doing a radio reading of our local history and we touch on the incident of Nubuo Fujita and his visits to Brookings, OR. How that came to be differs from the story on Mysteries of the Museum and what local history has recorded. I am just wondering if you actually visit the museum and get the information from them or if it is obtained somewhere else. The first story had wrong information, whereas the second story just had differing information.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
background noise
obsidianstardelta1 March 2022
Well, it is readily apparent that no one is listening to any of the comments presented with respect to the background noise.

Although the program has some redeeming qualities, the music/noise in the background overshadows the dialog.

Question: Is anyone listening???

I'm sorry, What did you say?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth a watch if you like history.
emsky33326 June 2018
It is a great idea for a TV show, I absolutely love the stories, however, they are very loosely based (at best) on the objects in the museums. For example, a medieval clay etching, depicting farming in ancient Britain, then goes on to tell a story on crop circles. Or the story of John Smith, a barber who once cut president so and so's hair, who used this phone, that is on show at the museum of telephones... It's kind of funny how irrelevant the objects actually are.

It's also another very americanised program, in this I mean that the historical war accounts are somewhat pro-America, and twisted to paint their history in a favourable light. It's bias, annoying, and eyeroll inducing, because more often than not, there is much more to the story.

Overall it is a good show, and worth watching if you love history.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Lindberg baby
dawnddurante7 June 2023
I can't thank you enough for going into the facts of the kidnapping of the Lindberg baby. I'm a criminal defense attorney and I knew that an innocent man was executed. I studied the case and people were angry that I was attacking a hero. Thank you for explaining eugenics & Lindberg's association with a professor who was studying it. He had a baby that had birth defects & he couldn't let people know that. When letting people know that Lindberg had other families around the world you gave the true picture of the man. You did a more thorough look at the case then anything I've ever seen. Thank you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great, but with a few flaws
capricornius19 April 2020
It's a great show, it tells stories and mysteries that we might not know. However it does have some flaws. I'm not a fan of the dramatic music and reenactments, and that instead of just telling what it is, they say something like "the artifact is 30x30 inches, grey, silver" and so on.

That's just not good. But otherwise it's a great show.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Awful music and script
VHSdynamite3 June 2015
First of all, it's a good idea for a show. But sadly it's executed in the most typical American way possible.

Take the music, for example. The crappy midi orchestra or whatever sounds exactly like your average reality show. Whatever American show I'm watching nowadays, the same stupid midi orchestra music appears. I'm sick of it.

Secondly, the writers. This show's script is awful with a capital A. Wildman is a hero for turning the script into something listenable. It's clearly written by someone pretending to be eloquent, but inserting all kinds of strange adjectives and synonyms just for the sake of it isn't helping. Instead of "honest", they use "veracious". Instead of "harmless", they use "innocuous". Instead of calling New York a big city, they call it a "thriving metropolis". This is fine every now and then, but they do it ALL THE TIME. It makes me sick.

Finally, this show is all about plots, "clever ruses", "daring ruses" "shocking tales", "devious plans", "sinister incidents". The writers tells me how I'm supposed to feel about the stories, instead of letting me make my own opinion in peace.

I give it 4 because it's about museums and history, and those are awesome. I can't believe that this show has 8 points on IMDb. It says more about the quality of American television than the quality of this show.

Regards, Annoyed European
21 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great concept
pugpro24 December 2021
I love watching this show and can't wait till see what Don does next.

Gives great stories on items around the globe. Could do without the over-scripted redundant talking points but I guess you have to fill it with something.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Too many puns?
Shadowfun28 November 2017
I really like the show and find it very informative. I enjoy learning about little know stories surrounding some artifacts. I also like that they include visitor tips for some museums. But I truly can't ever get over how a documentary-type show can use so many puns. Bad puns at that. It makes it look so amateurish. It could be a lot more professionally done.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Mostly unrelated "exhibits"/"artifacts"
llamacyde16 July 2023
The greater bulk of items shown have nothing directly linking them to the stories/history told they're just "similar". The show is "Mysteries at the museum" not "homage to ___ at the museum". Honestly I'd be plenty interested in the actual history of the items shown rather then unrelated stories that don't pertain to the provided "history" they link them too. There's also a good amount of misinformation or just outright silly "ghosts" etc/nonsense. They also re-use the same footage excessively and seemingly repeat stories only with slight alterations on occasion. Rather then spoiling anything with direct examples simply watching an episode or two you'll see for yourself what I mean. The music audio is too loud compared to the speaking volume. Dont get me wrong tho while my review is a bit critical I still enjoy the show, the stories/history is nice when it's correctly expressed but just feels off having totally unrelated items as their "reference". Usually only told to us at the end of the story that "___ is a similar reminder of ___" if they started out with expressing the items shown aren't the actual items they reference it wouldn't be as frustrating. Again I genuinely enjoy the show enough not to let it bother me too much, and enough to give this a solid 7/10 recommending it if you enjoy history on a more casual level. If you go in understanding the items shown aren't likely related to the stories shared it's not as bad. I'd suggest to just take it at face value rather then expect total accuracy, or to see the actually referenced items as some of the stories can seem a bit biased or occasionally misleading.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Entertaining, but Highly Inaccurate
breandan-637-36616010 October 2018
While the show is a good choice for light entertainment with some interesting stories, many of them are easily proven to be highly inaccurate. From getting numerous key facts wrong to presenting theories long since disproven, the show should be taken with not a grain of salt, but a whole heaping sack of it. That being said, the presentation is entertaining, and provided you aren't actually a historian shouldn't cause too many eye twitches.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Background Music Distracting And Too Loud
robert_g_wilson19 August 2021
It has generally good content but can't understand narrative due to loud and distracting music, if that is what you call music, not just noise.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unwatchable
mrscumbag3 November 2022
To describe this show in a word: Hyperkinetic.

It's ALWAYS moving at a million miles an hour. No shot will last more than a few seconds before switching to another or rapidly zooming in or out for no reason (and this is, of course, always accompanied by an obnoxious sound effect) other than to appeal to those with extremely short attention spans and who need constant movement and stimulation, lest they look down at their phones and lose interest.

The music is constant and loud, often drowning out the narration and never letting up, even for a second. It feels like I'm being berated by music and sound endlessly, and it makes it impossible to just relax and to concentrate on what is actually being SAID.

This shocking amount of overproduction may appeal to some, but it makes this show an absolute chore to watch, and after each of the few episodes I have watched, I really had to wonder how much information was really communicated vs how much sheer noise and color were mercilessly assaulting my senses. It just isn't worth watching any more episodes, in my opinion.

I guess this kind of thing probably appeals to younger people, but I prefer documentaries to be a little more subdued and concerned with communicating facts and information, rather than assuming that if they stop jingling keys in front of my face for more than three seconds, I'll lose interest.

It's a little insulting, now that I think about it.

It's also a shame - I've quite enjoyed Wildman's work on other shows - particularly Cities of the Underworld. He can do much better than this.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed