On Golden Pond (2001)

Very disappointing...

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Christopher Plummer is always worth watching, so I sat through this whole production Not for the first time, I kept wishing that "On Golden Pond" was less of a glossed over, wishy-washy, happy-ending sort of show. Both the play and the film, and this version, too, gloss over the fact that Norman Thayer is truly a cruel person who was deliberately unkind to his daughter all her life. He seems to have been unkind, sarcastic, and verbally abusive to a great many people. I wouldn't want to be his daughter and I wouldn't want to be his wife. He's embittered and negative, and there seems to be no reason for his embitteredness as his life, as we are shown it, seems to have been a fortunate one. He and his wife appear to have no money troubles, he was successful in his career, his wife sticks by him and loves him -- what the he** is his problem? Every version of On Golden Pond presents Norman as a sort of curmudgeon, an old "poop." But he's not just an old curmudgeon. He's nasty. He hurt Chelsea. There's no reason to believe he won't continue to hurt Chelsea, even after their little confrontation/reconciliation. Consider how he refuses to tell her on the phone that he and Ethel will visit Chelsea and Bill in January? He later says it to the boy. But not to Chelsea. No, he's got to leave her hanging. He can't say they'll come. He can't give her that satisfaction or even allow her to plan. It's creepy.I've never understood why On Golden Pond is considered a sweet, love story. I just don't get it.This TV version is okay. Just okay. Plummer and Andrews turn in professional performances. They have chemistry together, that's obvious. Headly, playing the daughter, is less believable and seems nervous even when Norman isn't in the room. Sam Robards as Bill seems twitchy, too. The boy's role is downplayed in this version and he doesn't really get a chance to register. The set is excellent. There's some strikingly bad camera work here and there, more than I think is acceptable, even in a live production.The best part of the whole production is the promo at the beginning when the camera zooms in on Plummer and Andrews in a private room. They're supposedly rehearsing, but are actually playing Go Fish. It was cute. If you listen, you can hear the difference between Plummer's actual, strong voice in that promo, and his strained, weaker voice as Norman.I also love the bit when Plummer is on the phone with the boy, and says that Dumas, author of The Three Musketeers, is not pronounced Dumb-A**. Whenever I see Alexandre Dumas' name from now on, I'm going to think of that :-).

I am sorry to say that I did not have the pleasure of viewing the TV version of "On Golden Pond". I was in hopes that someone might be able to help me get in touch with the company who made the movie possible and lead me to a source where I might see the movie. Is it possible that it will be shown on TV again? If so, when? Thank you for your time and consideration. From what I have read about this movie, I feel that I would really enjoy viewing it. I have been a fan of Julie Andrews for quiet of few years. I have either been a part of the production of "Sound of Music", or, watched the play version many times. Because I enjoyed the original movie, and Julie Andrews stars in the TV version, I know I will enjoy seeing it. Any help would be appreciated. Once again, thanks.

What a huge disappointment this effort turned out to be. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer were unconvincing as a couple who had been married for years. Comparisons to the Fonda/Hepburn film are inevitable and this version only reaffirms how marvelous the 1981 film is. In this live T.V. version, the line readings were stiff and lifeless and the pacing was just plain bad. None of the cast members conveyed anything resembling real human emotion. Granted, this was "theatre", which is different than film, but surely the producers/director/actors could have made more of an effort to capture the emotional aspects of the story. This was especially disappointing because the actors involved (Andrews, Plummer, Glenne Headley and Sam Robards) are talented individuals. Oh well....better luck next time.

After singularly disappointing made-for-TV remakes of "South Pacific" and "Murder on the Orient Express" during the last two months, I expected the live TV production of "On Golden Pond" to be just as much of a let-down. Nothing could be further from the truth. If not the original, in no way does this disappoint.As the central couple, Ethel and Norman Thayer, Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer still have real on-screen magic together, with Plummer particularly outstanding. Gleanne Headley may not have had as much fire and spunk as Jane Fonda did as their daughter Chelsea, but she's no less good for all that. In truth, all the performances are solid, as is the elaborate cabin set, the latter all the more astounding when you realize that it was created indoors.I sincerely hope that this is issued on video before long. I'll definitely buy it for inclusion beside my copy of the original. For, clearly, that's where it belongs.Bravo to Andrews, Plummer, and everyone involved with this superior production!