Mysteries at the Museum

2010

Seasons & Episodes

  • 23
  • 22
  • 21
  • 20
  • 19
  • 18
  • 17
  • 16
  • 15
  • 14
  • 13
  • 12
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0

8.1| 0h30m| TV-PG| en
Synopsis

Don Wildman unearths relics from the world's greatest institutions to reveal secrets from the past. He examines each artifact to illuminate history's most incredible triumphs, sensational crimes and bizarre encounters.

Director

Producted By

Optomen Productions

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Also starring Don Wildman

Reviews

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike
Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
emsky333 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.
Shadowfun 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.
nancyandcecil 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.
deideiblueeyez 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.