On Golden Pond (2001)
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.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
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.
Well worth watching! The acting it great. However, this "live" re-make does not come close to giving me the emotional experience the original did! Example (POSSIBLE SPOILER): In the original movie, the boy is the the main influence in Norman's life. He is the one who helps him come to terms with his age and destiny. In this re-make, his is kind of on the side line. This is worth watching, and very entertaining, but falls short of the original! But what do you expect? I don't think entertainers ever say "Hey Joe, that movie was pretty stupid, let's re-make it!"
One of the worst live productions I have ever had the displeasure to watch. Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer did a good and fine acting job, but the production needed to be left alone. If I was to give this production any rating, it would have to be 3 due to the acting abilities of this production.
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!