StunnaKrypto
Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.
Kamila Bell
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
Stephanie
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Phillida
Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
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.
