Rose Hill

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.

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."

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!

Rose Hill, which was adapted to screen "loosely" based on Julie Garwood's novel "For the Roses" by Earl Wallace (who also wrote "The Wild Women of Chastity Gulch"), is a good story in itself. If I had not read the book first, I might have enjoyed it a whole lot more. In the movie, the characters' names remained the same as in the book, however their personalities, IQ's and roles in Mary Rose's life were altered greatly.

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!