Rose Hill (1997 TV Movie) User Reviews

Sweet, sensitive family entertainment

[sheryl-30 · 8/10 · 31 October 2006]

With no sex, violence or strong language, the movie features handsome people who care about each other creating strong family ties deeper than blood.

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!

Great story!

[Melissa Alice · 8/10 · 20 November 2000]

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.

Good story, beautiful cinematography, but weak cast

[ilixir · 6/10 · 14 March 2005]

The storyline is heart-warming and the cinematography is beautiful. However, except for Jeffrey Sams, Kristin Griffith, and the young boys, performance of the rest of the cast is rather wooden. More experienced male actors and lead actress would have brought out more sentiment the story deserves. Jennifer Garner is especially miscast as the female lead. Who would believe she was a 19-year girl in the movie ? She looks more like the four brothers' mother ! In my opinion, the story could have expanded on occasions how much the brothers had doted on the little sister Mary Rose and how she repaid them with ingratitude. Good entertainment, nonetheless, for the family on a Saturday night. But don't expect it to be another Lonesome Dove or even Lily Dale.

movie or book?

[windamgirl · 17 April 2004]

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.

A Film That Touches the Heart !

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 18 May 2006]

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.

Extremely corny, but entertaining

[jer33_3 · 5/10 · 28 July 2002]

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 it 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 guy who shot him. However despite it's many drawbacks I did manage to enjoy it.

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.

A MUST See esp if you are into Genealogy!

[cooknena · 10/10 · 26 June 2003]

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.

Why "Rose Hill" fell far below the mark for me.

[TakaraK84 · 1/10 · 6 February 2005]

"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.

Clean, innocent, heart warming

[busybeee2477-757-772018 · 8/10 · 20 November 2023]

I came across this film while browsing through free YouTube movies. It is a sweet, innocent western film. A beautiful wholesome story of how a little girl changed the course of four orphan boys lives forever and brought the best out in them. I like that this is a film that the entire family could enjoy watching together. I was afraid to watch it when I read some of the reviews but I'm glad I did watch it because instead I found that I enjoyed watching it. After all the crud filled movies that are out, it was refreshing to find one that reflected sweetness and goodness in this world. Maybe that's why people have a hard time with it because they don't know how to enjoy innocent movies.

It was AWFUL!

[Mystique7 · 1/10 · 10 June 2004]

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.

Campy, unbelievable, but entertaining

[craftydoni · 30 May 2004]

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!

Cute and Enterntaining

[WingsStef · 10/10 · 5 March 2003]

I remember watching this movie a few years back. As a fan of 19th century frontier life stories, this sounded very interesting. I can't remember all the details, but I really enjoyed this movie. If you are fan of this genre, and you can get this on video somewhere, check it out!

I heard this is based on a book as well. I haven't located the book yet, but maybe now that came across this story on this site, I will look back into it!

Nothing like the book,

[leah1021 · 1/10 · 19 June 2005]

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.

Read the Book, don't bother with this TERRIBLE MOVIE

[apple_scruff1983 · 1/10 · 3 December 2011]

For the Roses, the book upon which this movie was based, is one of my favorite books of all time. That said, Rose Hill is probably the worst book adaptation I have ever seen. The only thing that it shares in common with the book upon which it purports to be based is the names of the characters.

I honestly wish that I could erase the memory of this film from my mind, so that it would not tarnish the image of the book I enjoyed so thoroughly. I can't believe that Julie Garwood, who penned this excellent book (and it's sequels, which are about the four brothers-- none of whom die in the book!), allowed this terrible movie to be made.

As far as what is the most awful thing about it, I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps it is the portrayal of Mary Rose, a girl who is supposed to be sweet and well adjusted, caring and altruistic. In the movie, she comes across as a spoiled brat who doesn't appreciate anything that her brothers have done for her. And Harrison is supposed to be her handsome Highland love interest, not the wimpy loser the movie makes him out to be.

I won't even get into all of the things that are wrong with the way the rest of the family is written, except to mention Mama Rose. One of the central parts of the book is the letters the Mary Rose and the boys send to Adam's mother, Mama Rose (who becomes a surrogate mother to the entire clan), throughout their lives. Each chapter began with one of these heartfelt letters illustrating the growth of each individual into a man (or woman). I realize that they could not have put the correspondence into the movie, but they could have in some way alluded to the closeness they have all developed with the woman who raised them in spirit, not being present in the flesh.

Anyone who is thinking about watching this movie-- don't. Even as a stand alone movie, it is pretty bad. If you have read the book, then really DON'T WATCH THIS. It will only serve to make you angry and disappointed. I was so excited when I heard that they were making a movie out of this book, but they should have just left it alone. If you are still interested in the movie, just go buy the book, For the Roses by Julie Garwood. I promise you, it will be a must better investment of your time!

For the Roses Lite

[krazycherry2002 · 4/10 · 10 January 2005]

It's totally bad,but I'm being very fickle in this review. Since I read the novel this is based on so many,many times. The movie lacks the quirky charm of the novel that I love. There are so many changes to the plot that I couldn't get into the movie totally, I mean one of the brothers gets killed? And Adam becomes sick with consuption???! WTH, I'm like that is not how it's supposed to happen and other stuff too numerous to mention. I kept wanting to grab my copy of the book and start reading. I can say I enjoyed Adam he was very in character, how I imagined him from the book,and Jennifer Garner was a nice choice for Mary Rose but she played her as a selfish snot.In short the very beautiful and sweet story of "For the Roses" was chopped up,stripped down and what you have is like many have already said in other reviews a story that only has the names in common with the book. Truly,if you want to really enjoy a story read the book,it has drama,comedy,and a big climax with Adam's trial near the end that will keep you glued.

awful adaptation of a wonderful book

[queenrocky · 25 July 2011]

So, I read the other reviews, and I thought it couldn't possibly be as bad as people wrote. Yikes, I was wrong. The book is a beautiful tale, with lovable characters. Mary-Rose is warm and sweet and her relationship with Harrison (not her brother, though they did make someone Scottish in the movie) is one of the best romance tales ever. Furthermore, her brother are all fantastic characters that you fall in love with. In contrast, everyone in the movie is stiff and cold, Mary Rose is a snot, and her brothers have nothing to endear them to the viewer. To say this movie completely missed the mark is an understatement. Even when you disassociate the book from the movie (which is admittedly difficult even with the lack of similarities), the movie itself is badly acted, with even worse dialog. The person in the movie with the most personality is Stringer, which does not appear in the book at all. Overall, even expecting to be disappointed after reading the other reviews, I was even more so disappointed. One of the worst movies I have ever seen, by far...

Read the book! Possible spoilers.

[devonshea5 · 2/10 · 13 March 2002]

Possible spoilers Ahead * * * * * Well, I was very disappointed with the movie. The book it is based on is absolutely excellent. The movie changed characters, killed characters off that survived in the book, made Mary Rose into a snotty little brat and a thoroughly unlikeable character. I started taping this movie when it came on and stopped before the first hour was over. I realize a movie version of a book is hardly ever as good as the book itself, but this adaptation just purely sucked. It turned Mary Rose from a loving young woman into a person I just couldn't care about and hoped would die crossing the Atlantic and put the audience out of its misery.

If you want the good story, read the book, For the Roses, by Julie Garwood. Don't bother watching this trash.

Cheers.

If you read the book, don't watch the movie

[bcrain-1 · 1/10 · 14 August 2002]

The only saving grace is that it is so off base from the book you wouldn't recognize it. Don't know why they keep repeating it on TV. The book was one of my all time reads.

Mary Rose is a brat

[Leemelod · 2/10 · 7 January 2020]

I have never read the books, but I'm glad to know Mary Rose wasn't the selfish brat that she is portrayed like in this movie. After everything her brothers do for her she says they aren't her family and cries for the man who shot and killed her brother. A man she barely knew who gave her a little romantic attention. Just no. I was pretty much done with the movie right there and then. I wonder why they chose to go this route with this movie and make Mary Rose is so unlikable? Even though they try to redeem her in the end, I still found her unlikable and not at all root worthy.

didn't quite do it for me

[rmorrow44 · 19 April 2004]

I enjoy Hallmark Hall-of-Fame movies, and I was interested to see some early work by Jennifer Garner, but this story was weak and underdeveloped. It was heart-warming and clean, if that's what you're looking for, but characters for me were unbelievable and the plot just never developed enough. I found it lacking. And since this site requires 10 lines of type in a comment and that's all I have to say, the rest is just filler. Jennifer Garner needs some good movie roles. I'm crazy about Alias, but I don't want to see her stuck in a kick-butt girl role. I'd like to see her in a good, tragic love story, where there's a little of her "I love Michael Vaughn but can't quite have him because something always gets in the way."

confused

[packcat0413 · 5/10 · 15 January 2007]

i watched the movie first and because of the movie i wanted to read the book. i just finished the book today. i don't really know what to say. i love the book so much more than the movie. you really learn about the characters better in the book. there are so many difference in the movie and book that i don't know where to start. i think the best part of the book is where you can feel the love between mary rose and harrison.in the movie he is her brother! i think that if their romance had be put into the movie, that the movie would have been so much better. i won't try to explain(thank god) because i will be here all day. i'll just say that if you have read the book, don't see the movie and vice-versa. i do, however, suggest that you do read the book.

AWFUL!

[racheldebty · 1/10 · 4 September 2021]

If you loved the book you will HATE the movie. Basically the only thing it has in common with the book are the names. I know some things have to be altered to fit a movie but none of this was true to the book. The book was a beautiful love story and about a family that loves each other fiercely and how they honor that bond of love. If you want the REAL story, read the book.

Good concept but no depth. Should have been a miniseries.

[rebekahrox · 5/10 · 11 March 2021]

I tried to read the book, but I just couldn't get into it. Probably because I was too used to reading her medieval romances. My point is that my rating has nothing to do with what a disappointment the movie was compared to the book. Bottom line they tried to do too much in two hours. The story was just too big.It needed four hours minimum. Too many characters, too many plot points, too much time elapsing, etc. It ended up being too choppy and just skimmed the surface leaving the viewer uninvested in the characters or the happenings. At least 4 or 5 of the short scenes could have been made into movies by themselves.

One thing for sure: I'm going to give Julie Garwoods original novel another try!

Genuinely touched...

[Brooke1290 · 18 March 2002]

...by this story. A very good adaptation of the novel of the same title by Julie Garwood. I resisted seeing the movie after reading the book because I often find that movies adapted from books miss a lot of things; Rose Hill (the movie) had the best essence of the book.

Bravo! to Mr. E. Wallace and Christopher Cain for bringing this great story to life. Jeffrey Sams was perfect and very charming. Jennifer Garner did a great job of portraying Mary Rose. There were a lot more poignant scenes that I can name but do not wish to spoil the movie for those who have not seen it. This definitely goes in my top (TV) movie list.

This stinks!

[13thknight · 2/10 · 26 December 2007]

If you have read the book then stay away from this movie. It is so much a betrayal of the characters that I can not bear to ever wish for another of Julie Garwood's books to ever be made into a movie if she could approve of this interpretation.

The best thing that they did was not give it the book's title (gave them one point for that) so that people can maybe not associate the two.

There was no need to make the girl so self centered, to kill her brother in order for her to go back to the city, where they all met and decided to become a family instead of a gang, to be reunited with her birth family.

If I had seen this movie first then I would never have wasted my time reading all five of the stories.