|Index||4 reviews in total|
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.
*** This review may contain 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.
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 city, it's a "thriving metropolis". People don't die, they "succumb to injuries"). 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.
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
|Ratings||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|