Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

sromanowa 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.

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.

Film Filmesen 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