Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

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.

Tam-16 Narrated by the main character, Donna, this movie is about her life. From a traumatic moment as a college student to the distance between her mother and herself. The story of her best friend, Harry and his life. A flirtation with Harry's father to falling in love with a man whose separated from his wife. Her career as a successful prosecutor to the moment when she truly falls in love the way she needed too. The acting was mediocre. It's unfortunate that the movie spent time on areas that are irrelevant and skipped over the areas that needed more exploration. Danielle Steel's novels are usually represented better.