With stage musicals being filmed once again live for T.V., a reflection back of some other recent efforts (mostly non-musical) is in order, and for the reunion of Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer for "On Golden Pond", the curiosity factor is still there. Unlike a previous reunion of Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore for "The Gin Game", this makes it clear that its leading lady looks far younger than she was at the time, her china doll face ageless and evergreen. That makes it unbelievable that she would be right for the role of Ethel Thayer, and as sincere as her performance is, the fact that this is Mary Poppins, Maria Von Trapp and Victor/Victoria remains steadfast. Christopher Plummer, however, is the perfect age for the cantankerous Norman Thayer, and he really makes you feel that this character might be seeing his last summer. He's more sardonic than the quiet performance by Henry Fonda, looking on at everything and everyone around him with a bit of a judgmental air that is realistic for an older gentleman. You can even forgive him for his tirade against a 90-something year old lesbian who has just passed away.The set for the lake house is perfect, like the stage setting I saw this with in 2004 for the Broadway revival with Leslie Uggams and James Earl Jones. The filming is somewhat shaky, like a 1980's soap opera, but that's a perfect metaphor for the two character's shaky futures. As for the other characters, I have always had a problem with Chelsea outside of the original film with Jane Fonda, even with the Broadway revival. She's not very well written, even in the movie, but fortunately, the personal relationship between Jane and Henry was so real that it was almost haunting to watch. When Jane talks about being in charge in California, you believe her, but other actresses I've seen playing this part don't always convince me as much. Glenne Headly really tries to make this character work, but something about the writing for her just seems so forced. Even the confrontation between Headly and Andrews about her differences with her father just don't strike it as right, and when Katharine Hepburn struck Jane Fonda out of frustration, it truly was believable. Jane's frustrations seemed real; The others seem more like whining.Will Rothhaar is impressive as Billy Ray Jr., the potential step grandson who is woken up by the friendship he develops with Plummer. He's more impish than Doug McKeon's very early 80's variation of the character, and seems more like a 13 year old of the early millennium, so his characterization modernizes the play a bit. However, the "suck face" reference still bothers me as a slang term nobody probably ever used unless they saw the original movie or play. The movie misses some of the action scenes of the original, especially that phenomenal music score that still brings on nostalgia. Sam Robards isn't as raw in his performance as Billy Ray Sr., but when he stands up to Plummer, it is almost more of surprise, because he does initially seem to be a much wimpier character.There are so many things to like in this, but this has more a feeling of a family reunion of "The Sound of Music" than the genuine story of Norman and Ethel Thayer. Fonda and Hepburn had not worked together, and apparently had never even met, so their pairing was fresh and filled with nostalgia. He had that quiet Spencer Tracy attitude going which created the sentimentality the original film needed. The reunion of Julie and Christopher didn't feel right for this story, and unfortunately, her timeless beauty keeps her from truly owning this part.

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.

I am sorry to say that this production was a complete embarrassment to all involved. I have seen student films with better camera work.The principles were horribly cast. After 20 minutes I changed the channel for fear of ruining my happy memories of the Fonda/Hepburn film.

There is so much talk about the poor ratings this movies received that its good qualities have been largely ignored. It should be a great pleasure and honor for the public to have Mr. Plummer perform live on TV. He is one of the only great actors left from the generation of theater actors that included Jason Robards and George C Scott. Of course, the public is as always ignorant and most people prefer to watch trashy programs such as the survivor. In this movie, both Plummer and Andrews were superb as was Glenne Headly. In this era of trashy movies and low life so called actors such as Tom Green, David Spade, and Adam Sandler, who all should be working together in a Burger Joint instead of making films, it's refreshing to have such a good play performed live on TV. Plummer is a true treasure in this movie as he was in the last year's film the Insider and in American Tragedy. We hope to see more of him in the future.