An unexpected masterpiece

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

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.

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

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.

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!