|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|Index||24 reviews in total|
If you've read the book, don't watch this movie.
And if you're thinking about watching the movie, read the book instead.
I was completely disappointed in this adaptation, which seems to have retained only the names of the characters and the fact that Mary Rose was found as a baby by the brothers (although the more specific details of this have been altered as well). All I could think while watching this travesty was, a) Apparently the screenplay writer read the back copy of the novel and not Garwood's actual book and b) Thank god for Jennifer Garner and Justin Chambers (the only apparent acting talent in the movie), otherwise I'd shoot myself right now.
By the end of the movie, I was trying to figure out how Julie Garwood even allowed her name to be anywhere in the same universe as this film. I would probably have felt about ten thousand times better if this was done independent of the book, since it has practically nothing in common. And I would have been much less freaked out when Cole and Adam die (uh, yeah, in Julie Garwood world they get their own novels) and waaaaaay less weirded out when Harrison, Mary Rose's boyfriend/husband in the book shows up as her brother in the movie.
Okay, really, the message here is just read the freaking book. Pretend the movie never happened.
I originally got very excited when I heard this movie was coming out.
I'm a huge Julie Garwood fan, and this movie was to be based on her
bestseller, 'For the Roses'.
Five minutes into the show, I realized that the only thing the book and movie had in common were the names of Mary Rose and her brothers, and the place they live, Rose Hill.
I was very disappointed that the movie was so far away from the book, because the book is a wonderful love story. If you haven't read it, do!
But once I realized how different it was going to be, I was able to look at it as a movie with similarities. That way, I could enjoy the movie unto itself, and not keep comparing it to the book.
The movie is a nice way to kill a couple of hours, with your crochet or knitting in hand, but I wouldn't recommend it if you loved the book! Mary Rose, in the movie, is a spoiled, self-centered little twit who finally comes to self-realization and becomes a better person. Nice, but in the book, she already IS a wonderful person, and would never have looked twice at someone who killed one of her beloved brothers. And in the book, if I'm remembering correctly, none of the brothers die, which is good, since they're all terrific, as well. As a matter of fact, several books were released later, detailing the love stories for the brothers, as well, including Adam, the oldest.
Rent Rose Hill if you want a mindless, though entertaining time-killer. But if you want a terrific story, go get the book "For the Roses", instead. You wont' be sorry!
I watched this movie against my own better judgement. When some friends
wanted to watch it, they explained the plot to me. I thought it sounded so
incredibly lame. How interesting does a movie about a bunch of homeless
teenage cowboys finding and raising a child sound? I was forced to watch
against my will, but I didn't think it was that awful, in fact I found it
rather entertaining. Parts of it are ridiculous. The girl at points can be
annoying, especially when her brother is dying and she's hitting on the
who shot him. However despite it's many drawbacks I did manage to enjoy
I definitely wouldn't recommend this movie to a guy who can't stand to watch chick flicks, but to guys who can tolerate them, the movie isn't completely insufferable. For a woman who likes sap movies, like the ones who made me watch this movie, this is a must see.
When explaining the movie it sounds like it's about a bunch of gay cowboy's raising a child, I was surprised.
I would just like to say that I am a HUGE Julie Garwood fan and have read all of her books and For the roses, renamed Rose Hill, was my favorite. When I found out they were making a movie about it I was so excited. That is until I saw it. Jennifer Garner alone was enough to ruin it for me. She didn't act anything like Mary Rose. It was embarrassing. She acted so goofy. My main problem though was that it was nothing like the book! I realize a few things have to be changed, but come on! This should have never been based on For the roses. It was terrible! Hopefully the next time they try to make one of her books into a movie they will hire a different tele write.
This film caught me off guard when I viewed young boys picking adults pockets in a crowd in NYC and policemen blowing their whistles like in London, England. Then you observe a young girl placing a basket on a wagon and the boys taking off with a baby in the basket. These boys manage to purchase a train ticket and head West with the baby girl, Mary Rose,(Jennifer Garner). It was hard to believe these boys planned on taking care of Mary Rose since they were very poor and very young. This picture clearly shows the great love these young boys had for their adopted sister and people of all different races and backgrounds who were able to join their family of love. This is a film I could very well see over and over again.
With no sex, violence or strong language, the movie features handsome
people who care about each other creating strong family ties deeper
The street smart kids who leave town with a swaddling baby live in a color-blind world.
In a fairy tale story set during the taming of the west, the family survives and eventually prospers while maintaining their love for each other and their community. Self-reliance is rewarded, while theft meets with death - crisp values in an amoral world.
Nice to end a movie with a happy smile!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Rose Hill", although a decided effort at the wonderful story by Julie Garwood, fell well below the desired mark for me. I felt as if I was watching the book's alternate universe/ending. I understand that sometimes the best book-to-movie jumps are made by making cuts to the movie where needed and changing a few things, but this movie changed so much about the proper story that I almost couldn't watch the rest of the movie. First off, none of the brothers die or have any romantic interest, so if Hallmark decides to finish the series off and anthologize the last four books, they'd better figure out how to bring Cole back to life and do away with the "Adam and Shining Water have a baby" bit all at once. Jennifer Garner was a good choice to play Mary Rose Clayborne, however, not the best choice, given her affinity to give the "pouty lip", where the book's Mary Rose would have ground her heel into that lip. The family does not break up in the end, showing that the true testimony to the story is not the romance aspect, but truly the family that stayed together throughout all the troubles. But what made me truly angry was the writer's gall to bring in new characters and nix out the true characters who made this story what it was to me! Fergus Carroll is a sad stand-in for Harrison Stanford MacDonald, Shining Water... wait, she had no character in the book, as well as Annie, the Clayborne family maid. John Stringer is new, and as for Cole Clayborne getting shot, I'd like to laugh a mighty laugh at the writer for even thinking that the book's Cole would take that without dishing back. Please. And Mary Rose's true family is from England, not New York. Sorry for the length, but I have to say that that flat out sucked.
If you've read the book this was based on, FOR THE ROSES by Julie
Garwood, you would understand the how seriously I detest this
movie--and you would also. They took a truly heartwarming and touching
story and OBLITERATED it for the masses. The story as written was far
superior to the drivel they filmed :( Only the barest shell of the
story was retained, and all the best parts were left out completely or
changed beyond recognition.
I'm sorry to say that Jennifer Garner was in this--though she has redeemed herself in 13 GOING ON 30 for me.
My advice: DON'T SEE IT and read the book instead :) You won't be sorry.
An excellent film, well done in format, scenery, time frequence and I did say frequence...plus well done for survival and justice. If anyone who is into genealogy, its certainly a must see. This story unfolds dramatically just as the stories of old did back in the 18th century. Such occurrences actually did happen. Times were very difficult back then, and there were many children abandoned to be raised by either strangers or other than family and more often than not they never even knew WHO their real parents were. This has been well documented in genealogy and further verified by the DNA genealogy projects going on right now with Surnames. Many males are NOT matching to the cuz or uncle or father they thought they were from, for the very reasons shown in this film. I viewed this film fr a genealogist researchers eye and I have to say this film is right on. If everyone or just half the folks would start researching their family history, they would be so totally amazed what they find, they would wonder in astonishment, how their ancestors ever made it so that they are here today to be thankful and grateful that they did make it! I compare this film to a film made abt my own ancestors..TRUE WOMEN. Its all true, no matter how 'corny' it might look to some.
This is a very interesting and fun family movie with drama, romance, adventure, and a bit of humor in the Old West and the more "civilized" East. The acting is good, and the story is really good. I gave it an 8/10.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|