On Golden Pond

2001 "A very rare modern day live TV drama with two legends."
6.6| 1h40m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 29 April 2001 Released
Producted By: CBS Productions
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Character-driven story about an elderly man coming to terms with his age, and the nearing of death; a middle-aged woman attempting to enter into a father-daughter relationship with her dad, whom she has never known closely; and a young teenager dealing with parental divorce. Ethel and Norman Thayer are an old couple living "On Golden Pond". Their daughter, Chelsea, is 42 years old, and has never been married. She is dating a 45 year old dentist, and brings him up to Golden Pond to meet her parents. Her boyfriend, Bill, has a 14 year old son named Billy, who comes along. Young Billy has been virtually raised by his mother, who is newly divorced from his father. The troubled child is left with the elderly Thayers for some time, as his father and Chelsea take off for a tour of Europe.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

CBS Productions

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Pluskylang Great Film overall
Freaktana A Major Disappointment
Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
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.
emisue02 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.
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.
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.
Kat Miss 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