Mjeteconer Just perfect...

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Kirpianuscus it is easy to have high expectations about the adaptation of a well known novel. and it is more easy to say a bitter verdict about it. but this film is real beautiful. and inspired option for a decent and seductive adaptation. the cast, the cinematography, the story as a veil, the landscapes , the performances. all admirable for a TV film. because it is the first fact who remains real important about "Camille" . it is a TV film, with each sin and virtue of the this category. and the work of Greta Scacchi, who gives an inspired Marguerite, sir John Gielgut, the so young Colin Firth as Armand are virtues of a film like a spring morning.

silver_faerie69 ...but a comment on the one and only review for this movie...Camille was first done in 1936 with Greta Garbo and Robert Taylor, this is not a first rendition. So to refer to the fact that it was a shame that it "wasn't made in the age of cable, with more developed scripts and better production values." is just plain stupid. It was a t.v. movie, not a theater film as was the original. It was an attempt to revive a classic, not an attempt to be a blockbuster. The amount of effort put forth with the actors and actresses was wonderful given the hand they were dealt. No one can do a perfect justice to a wonderful story. Books don't alway's translate well to screen. And in my opinion, no one can beat the absolutely wonderful chemistry and passion between Garbo and Taylor either. So they made the remake their own, not a copycat picture. Do your research first, comment after.