Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Spoonixel Amateur movie with Big budget

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

frankr315-1 For years I taught ON GOLDEN POND to my seniors. I always followed the play reading with the original film. We would always compare the two. Putting the two works side by side one would immediately notice how much better the film plays out. The author also wrote the film and he opened his play up. He made the relationship between Norman and Billy more prominent. He fleshed out those characters so that one can see how close they had become over the summer. One doesn't see that in the play version. That is one of the weaknesses in the play. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer ONLY had the play version to work with. Other reviewers mentioned that they appeared weak in their roles and were not as good as Fonda and Hepburn from the movie. Fonda and Hepburn had BETTER material to work with. That is really the reason why that version appears to be and is superior to the TV stage version. I had encouraged my students to watch the TV version and they all were disappointed. They, also, preferred the film. Ernest Thompson wrote a better film than a play.

bekayess 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.

i_ate_your_tots 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.

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!