CommentsXp Best movie ever!

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

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Zoooma My initial instinct is this is something from the Lifetime Network. Actually this made-for-TV movie was originally shown on the American television network NBC. Almost everything about it is nothing but pure garbage. But apparently this passed for acceptable entertainment in 1996. Who this pleased I am not really sure but I don't think it would work very well for a mainstream audience in 2014. I'm a dummy for watching such trash but sometimes I just want 90 minutes of Made-for-TV fluff. Poor Corbin Bernsen. He's so much better than this. I pretty much couldn't have been more bored.3.9 / 10 stars--Zoooma, a Kat Pirate Screener

Catharina_Sweden I found this movie completely pointless. True - there were one or two beautiful and moving scenes, for instance the wedding scene and the funeral scene. But they were not connected, somehow. There was no real story. Although the movie is called "full circle", you have to stretch the expression very far to see anything like that in this movie.What should the theme of this movie be? Rape? Mothers who let their children down because of their new loves? Career women? Crime? Losing a friend to death? It is all very muddled. And the very abrupt ending seems just thrown in, to end it all with some chance wish fulfillment for women... very stupid.

lexusnxtc I have read Danielle Steel's Full Circle several times (in two languages :)!) and really enjoyed it so when I saw in on TV I was excited about seeing it (though as a rule, I am generally disappointed by novels-turned-movies). The movie **barely** followed the story line of the book-- it was set in a different time period (80s vs the 60s--I think it was the 60s anyway but definitely not the 80s), characters who I felt were important to the story were not introduced or in some cases even mentioned (notably her college friend Sharon Blake and the experiences with her family), Harry's injury was incurred in a completely different manner than in the book and some of the ideas in the book were kind of twisted out of proportion (for example, in the book, after Tana's rape, when she tells her mother, she doesn't believe her and says that she never wants to hear her say anything else about it... in the movie, it was portrayed that she believed her, though in shock of course, but never wanted her to tell anyone). Things like this really ruined this movie for me (as well as the poor acting, naturally). I stopped watching after the first 45 minutes.

bonjolie It is sad that the main character is the least likeable. Her supporting cast is full of wonderful veterans like Erika Slezak, Corbin Bernsen, and the always terrific Reed Diamond, but they are underused. Reed Diamond is just amazing, I was so hoping that the story could just center around his character, who was far more multi-dimensional and interesting than the banal and insipid lead.