Diagonaldi Very well executed

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

mark.waltz 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.

peacham 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.

oscarafficianado 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.

youngie-1 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.