On Golden Pond (2001 TV Movie) User Reviews

Well done, but does not come close to original!

[srmccarthy · 8/10 · 30 April 2001]

Well worth watching! The acting it great. However, this "live" re-make does not come close to giving me the emotional experience the original did!

Example (POSSIBLE SPOILER):

In the original movie, the boy is the the main influence in Norman's life. He is the one who helps him come to terms with his age and destiny. In this re-make, his is kind of on the side line.

This is worth watching, and very entertaining, but falls short of the original! But what do you expect? I don't think entertainers ever say "Hey Joe, that movie was pretty stupid, let's re-make it!"

Stars better than material

[johnm_001 · 8/10 · 30 April 2001]

On Golden Pond has certainly enjoyed great success, and has endured for much longer than it has had any right to. It is a mediocre play about basically nothing. There is really no explanation, for example, as to why the father and daughter are at odds with one another. Also, there isn't much character development to allow for your truly feeling one way or the other about them. Even so, the play was a success in New York, and the film adaptation an even greater success. The new live television production of the play, does nothing to improve the piece. It does boast the reunion of both Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer, who have tremendous chemistry together. They are far less feeble than their movie counterparts, and, you never feel that Plummer's Norman is in any danger of actually dying. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing. The film version played on this so heavily, and I was not a fan of it, or Hepburn's manner acting style. She also looked far too old to be in her early 60's. Due strictly to the strength and personality of Andrews and Plummer, this live presentation is recommended. I hope that these two pros can be afforded a better vehicle in the future.

Nice take on the story, but doesn't compare to the movie

[deltadave669 · 7/10 · 30 April 2001]

This made for a nice little program to watch on sunday night, but it just can't quite match up to to the powerful performances put in by the cast in the movie. Plummer and Andrews put in good performances, but the rest of the cast does not seem comfortable doing live television. I don't know if they'll ever put this out again, but watch it only if the movie isn't on!

Good try

[rand86 · 21 May 2001]

On Golden Pond is a timeless classic and the 1981 movie is one of the greatest films ever made. So it was very difficult for this version to come close to the movie. Andrews and Plummer are fantastic together and I can't believe they waited 36 years to do something together again. They are brillant as usual but the rest of the cast is way out of their league and look very unconfortable. This is a good try but it comes nowhere near the emotional resonance of the movie. Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda are unforgetable in these roles and it's hard to picture anyone else comparing to them.

Always fun to see a live play

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 7 June 2022]

The 2001 live performance of On Golden Pond is very different from the 1980 film version, so be prepared when you watch it. Each of the performers have their own interpretation of their roles. Sometimes it's nice to watch people pay homage to their predecessors, and sometimes it's refreshing to just see something brand new. If you don't want to imagine Katharine Hepburn without Henry Fonda as her "knight in shining armor" (which, incidentally, isn't in the original script), just stick to the original.

The rest of you get to see Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer together again after nearly forty years! As you know from the script of On Golden Pond, they don't have the best relationship in the world, so it's not going to be as sweet as you're expecting. The language is also full of artificialities that no one would say in real life; you'll be very aware that you're watching a play. As an eighty-year-old character, Chris has an enormous amount of pep. He doesn't appear to be decrepit in the slightest, and when he talks about dying, you can't help wondering if he's simply a hypochondriac. Julie is also very different from Katharine Hepburn. She's youthful, vibrant, and full of elegance. Kate was her delightful self, but she also had to appear as old as her crotchety husband. When Julie says, "You're in your seventies and I'm in my sixties," you'll think she means the early part of the decade until Chris corrects her.

Glenne Headly also is extremely different than Jane Fonda in the role of the daughter. When Jane tells her mother that she's functional in the outside world, only reduced to reliving her fat childhood when she comes home, you believe it. She seems capable and confident, but just happens to have issues with her father. Glenne seems insecure and full of emotional problems; her issues can be triggered at the drop of a hat. It's up to you to figure out which interpretation you like better, but if you're a regular theatregoer, you'll probably be able to appreciate both versions.

Wrong choice for reunion

[gabrielchandragc · 6/10 · 21 April 2017]

I watch this movie just because Julie and Chris but I think this time their chemistry kinda forced. Julie and Chris doing great for their performance but they look unconvincing as old pairs. When Chris got heart attack, Julie just panic and do not know what to do. If they really old couple for many years, Julie should be know what she must to do if Chris got heart attack because it's must be not the first time Norman get heart attack.

I love the scene when Chris forgot the direction, then decide go home early and tell Julie about him senile, Julie hold him and kiss his head, is so sweet but they look like old friends than pair. But, the chemistry between Norman and Billy Ray, Jr. Very interesting. Like nosy grandpa with his grandchild, more enjoyable than Norman and Chelsea scene.

EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL

[KatMiss · 10/10 · 30 April 2001]

It was a risky experiment, but on the basis of last night's live presentation of "On Golden Pond", I'd say it was a major success. Despite a few flaws (no live presentation is completely perfect), this is one of the years' best films:a great film in the so far (with the exception of a few undeniable gems) lousy film year 2001.

It's becoming a trend, I'm afraid, that good, intelligent entertainment is being relegated to television more and more. So far, we've been treated to such excellent films as "Wit" and "61*" (both HBO), "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her" (Showtime) and "The Miracle Maker" (ABC). These are all films that deserved theatrical release. Why not?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that they wouldn't appeal to the mindless teenagers who go to films these days. They are actually about something, which is deadly to those affected by what Roger Ebert calls the "Screen Attention Defecit Disorder". But at least TV is giving these lost films a chance to be seen and heard. For that we should be grateful.

Now, back to the movie. Since it's inevitable that it will be compared with the highly regarded (deservedly so) 1981 film, I might as well start. There is much more comedy in this version than the 1981 version, and I think that's the way it should be. Henry Fonda's more grave and serious portrayal was just right in that version and Christopher Plummer puts his own personal spin on Norman. Of course, Plummer has had more success with comedy than Fonda did, so the change is good, in this case.

Also, there's more time spent on the personal relationship between Norman and his wife Ethel than in the 1981 version, and I think that's also a good change; you don't want to see a retread of the original, you want to see another reading of the same material and this live version takes risks. It's not shy about the material, which is what plagues most TV movies (and theatrical features, for that matter)

But I don't want to give away too much, since a video version is inevitable, I would like to save some of the nice changes for you to discover. Like I stated before, there are a few flaws (some shaky camera work and you can hear the director speaking through the soundman during one of Julie Andrews' big speeches), but what amazes me about this live version is how it constantly surprised and entertained me, especially since I loved the 1981 version.

During the commercial break, it was announced that this was the first in a series of live presentations. That's good news; in an era of trash TV, perhaps an exciting, offbeat format like live TV (these days, at least)will make TV worth watching today.

**** out of 4 stars

great effort

[emisue02 · 9/10 · 5 April 2003]

I saw this version before I saw the 1981 version, so I was biased toward this one from the start (plus, I adore Julie Andrews and "Sound of Music"), but it was really very well done. Julie and Christopher are phenomenal together, with their constant bickering that barely masks the love their characters feel. Both gave excellent performances, Julie especially when she thinks (spoiler ahead) that Norman is going to die and she's frantically trying to save him. (Julie also surpasses Katharine Hepburn in one scene, when she slaps Chelsea for calling Norman an sob. Katharine's slap was so deliberate and calculated, like she'd been waiting for years to do it. Julie's was an automatic reaction to anyone who would dare talk about the love of her life in such a way. Kudos to Julie for milking that scene for all the emotion possible.) The chemistry between Julie and Christopher far surpases Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda's. Both of them gave good performances in the original, but didn't seem to mesh well together. Not so with this Norman and Ethel. I like how this version focuses more on that relationship, because the play is essentially about growing old. Glenne Headly, who I loved in Mr. Holland's Opus, didn't give that great of a performance in this one-at least, not on par with her on-screen parents. But just to see Julie and Christopher interact with each other in an atmosphere where they are free to be hilarious, this version was well worth it. I just watched it for the third time last night from the tape I made when it came on, and it still made me smile.

Great movie bad play

[frankr315-1 · 2/10 · 30 October 2010]

For years I taught ON GOLDEN POND to my seniors. I always followed the play reading with the original film. We would always compare the two. Putting the two works side by side one would immediately notice how much better the film plays out. The author also wrote the film and he opened his play up. He made the relationship between Norman and Billy more prominent. He fleshed out those characters so that one can see how close they had become over the summer. One doesn't see that in the play version. That is one of the weaknesses in the play. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer ONLY had the play version to work with. Other reviewers mentioned that they appeared weak in their roles and were not as good as Fonda and Hepburn from the movie. Fonda and Hepburn had BETTER material to work with. That is really the reason why that version appears to be and is superior to the TV stage version. I had encouraged my students to watch the TV version and they all were disappointed. They, also, preferred the film. Ernest Thompson wrote a better film than a play.

A delightful remake that surpasses the original!

[Willscrlt · 10/10 · 29 April 2001]

I know the years have dimmed my memories of the original movie staring Fonda and Hepburn. However, I feel that this remake surpassed the original in many ways. First, the chemistry between Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer was superb. It was completely believable that these two had been married for years, and yet loved each other very much (in a rather kooky and dysfunctional way). Secondly, Norman's memory problems were present, but were not portrayed in as depressing a manner, and the overall movie was much more light hearted and funny than the original. Finally, the interactions between Norman and Billy were priceless! It was so much fun watching the two of them interact.

Sure, there were a few technical goofs (like the lighting guy that happened to be in the scene for a few moments, the shadows appearing outside the windows, etc.), but this was LIVE theater. Anything and everything can go wrong in that situation, but the show went off with hardly a hitch.

Bravo to the cast and crew. And it was so great to see Andrews and Plummer back together again. I hope we see more!

Okay, but not great. Somehow the weaknesses of the story show in this version.

[holdencopywriting · 5/10 · 22 January 2012]

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 :-).

Not The Play,Not The Film...But Good In Its Own Right.

[peacham · 12 July 2002]

This live production of Ernest Thompson's classic "On Golden Pond" was a refreshing experience. Its good to see culture on network television again. That being said,I must say that although billed as a live version of the play,its not quite a correct statement to make. Act II features several changes in the material (I.E. Bill returning with Chelsea to the lake,an absurd altercation between Bill and Charlie).

The changes do not, for the most part, effect the plot all that greatly,however. The only exception(although the actor is talented) is the treatment of Charlie the mail man..he becomes too obsessed and less fun.

As performances go...Plummer leads the pack..he gives a completely sincere performance and stays clear of any hint of Fonda's famous screen portrayal. Andrews is also fine as Ethel,equally acerbic and loving...again,not a hint of Hepburn.

The only supporting actor I though weak was Glenn Headley as daughter Chelsea,she seemed to lack any sense of fire or assertiveness.She should be as the character says 'In Charge in Los Angeles" but feeling like the little fat girl at home...we only glimpse the fat girl..even with Bill.

Over all OGP was a strong production. Hopefully the Networks will show more live on stage productions of classic plays in the future.

Life on the verge of senility

[clanciai · 8/10 · 4 October 2021]

Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer are both as good as ever and actually better than Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn in the same film 20 years earlier, while the problem is that there is no story. It's almost like a documentary of an old couple's existence almost beyond their scheduled time, Julie Andrews still being fresh, vibrant and full of energy, and even dancing and performing here, while Christopher Plummer is constantly aware of his approaching death, although he is only 80. He is the great performer here, his lines are constantly spiced with elegant and humorous wit and irony, but otherwise there is no humour in this play, just sentimentality and relationship frictions. It was the same with the earlier version, which was Henry Fonda's last role, which augmented the melancholy mood, while here there is a sustained urge of life all the way. The music is terrible, but Christopher Plummer makes the day.,

If you missed this live production be grateful.

[youngie-1 · 2/10 · 1 May 2001]

If you missed this live production of the wonderful play "On Golden Pond" don't worry. From the miscast leads to the strangely incompetent camera work, this became unwatchable after about 15 minutes. I kept thinking it had to get better, but it didn't. I admit to switching back and forth between this play and other television, but no matter when I watched it, the same problems were there. Julie Andrews still sounds English. She does not sound like someone who has spent every summer for 50 years in a New England cottage. Christopher Plummer looks like an aging leading man, not a grumpy old coot like Norman Thayer should look. He is not a character actor and was not able to pull it off. Add to this huge problem the jiggling cameras and poor editing the whole effect was poor. If you like this play - wait for a local stage production - it will probably be better, or rent the movie with Hepburn & Fonda.

Poorly directed and boring

[vicwinklepleck · 3/10 · 29 April 2001]

One of the worst live productions I have ever had the displeasure to watch. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer did a good and fine acting job, but the production needed to be left alone. If I was to give this production any rating, it would have to be 3 due to the acting abilities of this production.

delightful

[Kirpianuscus · 27 April 2023]

The first care is not compare it with the original. Because it fights to be different; and it just wins.

It is different for a sort of swet melancholia.

For the beautiful connection between Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer.

For the dialogue of ages.

And , sure, for teaspons of nice to touching humor.

In short, it is just one of film deserving to be loved because, in more measure than the version Hepburn- Fonda, offers a dialogue with audience about small significant things defining the life in its essence.

In short, just delightful and the joy to feel yourself just fine seeing, like the fruit of a good tea cup is just, in my case, less, mmore than precious.

Disappointing!

[oscarafficianado · 2/10 · 29 May 2001]

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.

A BAD IDEA

[Old70115 · 5/10 · 26 June 2004]

I love the original. I do not like this adaption! I do however have a soft spot for the cast and so I will not dare judge this to harshly! Julee Andrews and Christofer Plummer star in this TV adaption of the play "On Golden Pond". Now If TV wants to adapt plays I would recomend they stay away from re-making movies that were done right to begin with! TV should make "Sunset Boulevard" "Miss Saigon" "les miserables" and "chess". If they want to remake "Deathtrap" please do so! IF TV doesn't want to do musicals they should it least film a broadway performance of these plays! Now if you go on to rent this edition of "On Golden Pond" please do yourself a favor and don't rent it! Rent Bette Midler's edition of Gypsy

Charming!

[i_ate_your_tots · 29 April 2001]

Chris and Julie... together again. And Julie is still as beautiful as ever. This movie was very cute! It was done live and there were FEW mistakes! The movie had the odd boring patches, but all in all was pretty wonderful. I recommend it if it comes on TV again. Out of 10, I rate is 7.

The sound of their music is the loons on the lake.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 22 December 2014]

With stage musicals being filmed once again live for T.V., a reflection back of some other recent efforts (mostly non-musical) is in order, and for the reunion of Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer for "On Golden Pond", the curiosity factor is still there. Unlike a previous reunion of Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore for "The Gin Game", this makes it clear that its leading lady looks far younger than she was at the time, her china doll face ageless and evergreen. That makes it unbelievable that she would be right for the role of Ethel Thayer, and as sincere as her performance is, the fact that this is Mary Poppins, Maria Von Trapp and Victor/Victoria remains steadfast. Christopher Plummer, however, is the perfect age for the cantankerous Norman Thayer, and he really makes you feel that this character might be seeing his last summer. He's more sardonic than the quiet performance by Henry Fonda, looking on at everything and everyone around him with a bit of a judgmental air that is realistic for an older gentleman. You can even forgive him for his tirade against a 90-something year old lesbian who has just passed away.

The set for the lake house is perfect, like the stage setting I saw this with in 2004 for the Broadway revival with Leslie Uggams and James Earl Jones. The filming is somewhat shaky, like a 1980's soap opera, but that's a perfect metaphor for the two character's shaky futures. As for the other characters, I have always had a problem with Chelsea outside of the original film with Jane Fonda, even with the Broadway revival. She's not very well written, even in the movie, but fortunately, the personal relationship between Jane and Henry was so real that it was almost haunting to watch. When Jane talks about being in charge in California, you believe her, but other actresses I've seen playing this part don't always convince me as much. Glenne Headly really tries to make this character work, but something about the writing for her just seems so forced. Even the confrontation between Headly and Andrews about her differences with her father just don't strike it as right, and when Katharine Hepburn struck Jane Fonda out of frustration, it truly was believable. Jane's frustrations seemed real; The others seem more like whining.

Will Rothhaar is impressive as Billy Ray Jr., the potential step grandson who is woken up by the friendship he develops with Plummer. He's more impish than Doug McKeon's very early 80's variation of the character, and seems more like a 13 year old of the early millennium, so his characterization modernizes the play a bit. However, the "suck face" reference still bothers me as a slang term nobody probably ever used unless they saw the original movie or play. The movie misses some of the action scenes of the original, especially that phenomenal music score that still brings on nostalgia. Sam Robards isn't as raw in his performance as Billy Ray Sr., but when he stands up to Plummer, it is almost more of surprise, because he does initially seem to be a much wimpier character.

There are so many things to like in this, but this has more a feeling of a family reunion of "The Sound of Music" than the genuine story of Norman and Ethel Thayer. Fonda and Hepburn had not worked together, and apparently had never even met, so their pairing was fresh and filled with nostalgia. He had that quiet Spencer Tracy attitude going which created the sentimentality the original film needed. The reunion of Julie and Christopher didn't feel right for this story, and unfortunately, her timeless beauty keeps her from truly owning this part.

A wonderful play with great talent

[bekayess · 29 April 2001]

It's great to see a live play on television again...especially this play, with theatre/movie/TV legends Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer. And Julie even gets to sing. . .Personally, the couple reminds me of my 60ish parents. . .but beyond that, this is a wonderful treat for us baby-boomers who sort of grew up with live/live-on-tape TV, who also love live theatre. Julie is beautiful and emotional and real. Plummer is morbid and hateful and opinionated. . .and how many times have we heard "bull-s**t" on network TV. . .at last, TV has grown up.

Almost as good as the original!

[BobLib · 29 April 2001]

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!

Great Remake

[ali-reza.kasra · 3 May 2001]

There is so much talk about the poor ratings this movies received that its good qualities have been largely ignored. It should be a great pleasure and honor for the public to have Mr. Plummer perform live on TV. He is one of the only great actors left from the generation of theater actors that included Jason Robards and George C Scott. Of course, the public is as always ignorant and most people prefer to watch trashy programs such as the survivor. In this movie, both Plummer and Andrews were superb as was Glenne Headly. In this era of trashy movies and low life so called actors such as Tom Green, David Spade, and Adam Sandler, who all should be working together in a Burger Joint instead of making films, it's refreshing to have such a good play performed live on TV. Plummer is a true treasure in this movie as he was in the last year's film the Insider and in American Tragedy. We hope to see more of him in the future.

Unable to give a summary of the movie since I have not seen it.

[allouisstarr · 12 July 2005]

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.

Just awful!!!

[TroyBoy-3 · 31 July 2001]

I am sorry to say that this production was a complete embarrassment to all involved. I have seen student films with better camera work.

The principles were horribly cast. After 20 minutes I changed the channel for fear of ruining my happy memories of the Fonda/Hepburn film.