On Golden Pond

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!

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.

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!

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.

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