Seltzer 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 :-).

rand86 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.

johnm_001 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.

BobLib 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!