Benutzerrezensionen

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

...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.

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."

My review is based on my study of the book by Julia Garwood and then I watch the movie which supposed to eat picked the characters similarities. Which I found very little and common with the original storyline. I watched this movie Rose Hill when I was in my twenties and I am 60 something now and I still find there is little in common with The original story is full of Hope and survival. The movie itself Is a stark different storyline (Rose Hill).

I went back and read the original book ( For the roses).

The movie left me sad and disappointed that they did not ultimately all become family. They learn to live as men but not live as siblings.

Such a young devastating beginning will forge a bond despite their shortcomings in the beginning of the upbringing. Which that did not come across in the movie.

I typically do not write reviews because I feel everyone has their point of view. This movie although that it is interesting, has drama. It's simply does not match in any way the characters in the book.

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 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!