Wonderfully offbeat film!

Purely Joyful Movie!

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

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.

"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.

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.