Rating: 
Summary: What a disappointment!
Review: As a huge Julie Garwood fan, I was very excited about seeing the book on film. The book and the movie don't have that much in common, except 4 brothers and a sister. There were extra characters that were not in the book. And yes, Mary Rose was not the sweetheart in the movie that she was in the book. Spoiled, selfish and a brat! There is a new storyline introduced that has nothing to do with the book. A sore disappointment for sure! Beware Garwood fans, you will be disappointed! The only reason this has 1 star is because I couldn't give it 0 stars!
Rating:
Summary: A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT
Review: As I am a huge Julie Garwood fan, I found this movie to be very disappointing. The movie contain none of the depth of For The Roses, it didn't bring the charcters to life at all and ended up being an entirely different story to the book. The only thing that could really link the movie to the book was the fact that the characters names were the same, and that Mary Rose was the missing Lady Victoria. I agree with Angela Middleton's review further down - the screenwriter obviously hadn't read much of the book at all, otherwise the movie would have ended up as wonderful as the book is. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and continue to read it over and over again. I would be very surprised if Julie Garwood wasn't deeply disappointed with the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Early Jennifer Garner work has heart
Review: Before Jennifer Garner struck it big with, and developed her own fervent fanbase, as Sydney Bristow on ALIAS on ABC. And before she wowed audiences as Elektra in the original DAREDEVIL (surely she was the only redeeming feature of that movie) she was eking out a living as an actress in a variety of tv movies and b-pictures. One such movie was Hallmark's production of "Rose Hill" (based on Julie Garwood's best-selling "For the Roses") in which Garner plays Mary Rose. Mary Rose is a woman raised by a group of homeless boys. The boys decide to leave the slums and drab life as pickpockets on the streets of New York City to become cowhands on the plains of Texas (though one does enjoy a brief career as a Texas Ranger). Finally they become landholders of the Rose Hill Ranch on the rich grasslands of Montana where they raise cattle and try to make something of themselves - that is until tragedy strikes.
I have not read the book on which this movie is based, so I cannot comment on how good a job it does translating the text for the screen (judging by other reviewers comments not a very good one). But what this movie may lack in faithfulness to its source material it no doubt makes up for in down-home charm.
I'm not a big fan of westerns (I can probably count the number I like on two hands) so I was not holding out much hope for what this movie might offer (my shameless interest was the presence of Garner). But I found myself becoming both charmed and involved by the human family drama that is the underlying theme behind this movie.
As TV movies go this is passable entertainment, but those expecting Garner to kick around baddies as she does in ALIAS and DAREDEVIL will no doubt be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing!
Review: Having read many of Julie Garwood's books, I settled down with bated breath to enjoy what I expected to be a brilliant film. How wrong could I have been? I can only wonder if the screenwriter actually read Julie's book. Other than the use of the characters names, this butchered story bore little resemblance to the original plot. All four brothers are much stronger characters and none of them were lost along the way to death! Where did Fergus spring from? And what happened to the English Lord? Arghh! Don't bother with the film - stick to the book it's a far better story.
Rating:
Summary: Horrifying!
Review: I agree completely with all of the reviews written by people who have actually read the book "For the Roses" and the rest of the Clayborne series. This movie veered so far from the book it nearly made me sick. I couldn't even watch it through. And I didn't even enjoy the books that much! Don't waste your time watching this. You'll only be depressed afterwards.
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Book
Review: I am one of the few people who watched the movie before I read the book, but all I know is that after reading the book, which was wonderful by the way, I was deeply dissapointed with the movie. Not only did the screenwriter butcher the story, but he killed off my favorite charichter, Cole, and that was just wrong!
Rating:
Summary: This was not the Julie Garwood book at all
Review: I bought this movie expecting to see Garwood's book brought to life. I think the only thing the screenwriter read was the back of the book! There was no romance and it was disappointing to watch, expecting (in vain) to see the funny and interesting parts of the book. If you have read the book and loved it, dont watch this movie. If you havent read the book, expect to see an average family drama.
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie!
Review: I had not read, or even heard of Julie Garwood(?) before seeing this on television. It was the movie that interested me into reading the novel, as well as others by her. I thought that this movie was well-done (besides a few things.....)!
Rating:
Summary: a missed opportuntiy
Review: I have read all of Julie Garwood's books and looked forward to seeing one of them come to life. Sadly this was not to be. The highly forgetable actress who played Rose was overly pouty and did not resemble the strong and capable character of the book. While the cinematography was beautiful, the film was void of the depth of character of the novel. It seemed as though the scriptwriter could not allow Adam, the african-american Claymore to be as vital to the film as he was in the book. The ending, which included a senseless betrayal, the death of Cole and Rose settling for Fergus(none of which were in the book) was a tv movie whimp out. Perhaps, if it had been four hour film presentation there would have been time enough to tell the story in a way that truly honored Julie Garwood's wonderful work. Ditch the moive and READ THE BOOKS, as each brother had there own story.
Rating:
Summary: Julie Garwood--Yes! Rosehill--Heck No!
Review: I have read all of the reviews as well as ALL of Julie Garwood's novels. I have always admired her wit, humor and storytelling ability. With this in mind, I was VERY disapointed with "Rosehill". I did not expect that the movie would be a word-for word account and would have no flavor of its own. There have been plenty of movies I have enjoyed based on books that took some literary liscense. However, this is not what Hallmark did. They took a great story that involved strong characters, an unusual family, a mysterious stranger and a lasting love story and made it into a different story entirely. The changes they made didn't make sense. Why kill Cole when he wasn't killed in the first place? There was already enough drama in the book. Why make Adam on his deathbed and married at he end of the movie when he was so adamant against getting married? Why spend five minutes putting the family together only to spend the next few hours doing everything in your power to pull them apart and succeeding? They weren't a family, they were a fluke of circumstances according to this movie. They stayed together for the "baby's" sake and nothing else. No, this is not what it was. I understood why they changed the setting for MaryRose's father's home from being in England to being in New York. I did not understand the need to add a brother named "Harrison"--who by the way was the name of Mary Rose's husband in the book. I understood why they took out a lot of the middle scenes, background information and even why they left out Mama Rose. But, for the life of me, I can't tell you why they made the remaining two brothers leave to search for their own fortunes at the end of the movie when they had worked the ranch not only for Mary Rose, but also as the culmination of their own dreams as well. They needed that family as much as Mary Rose did. I understood why they left out Adam's trial, but I can't tell you what "Fergus" was. I also cannot tell you why they killed of Cole, but they did. I can't tell you why they made Mary Rose fall for that low-down piece of slime, but she did. As if her brothers (in the book) would have ever let a man like that within two paces of her. It's like they looked at a great puzzle and just took two pieces out of it, put together a new puzzle and called the two puzzles the same. No way! I know I sound like I am whining and I am telling you that there should be some things sacred in this world and when turning a book into a movie, you should stay true to the spirit of the book and the skeleton of the story. They didn't need to add the love scenes, but they should have told the love story. They didn't even try and the entire effort came across as sloppy. To me, it is the same as taking a classic like "Pride and Prejudice" and killing of Mr. Darcy and making Elizabeth marry Mr. Wickam. You can do it, but don't sell it by saying it is based on the original classic. NOT THE SAME AT ALL. Hallmark says that it wants to do a sequel and I am dreading that. However, there is a ray of hope. Julie Garwood is actually supposed to be writing on this one. If that holds true, I will be tuning in. However, a note to Hallmark before they take anymore creative liscense. KEEP TO THE OVERALL STORY PLEASE!
| 
