Search - Rose Hill on DVD

Rose Hill
Rose Hill
Actors: Jennifer Garner, Jeffrey D. Sams, Zak Orth, Justin Chambers, Tristan Tait
Director: Christopher Cain
Genres: Westerns, Drama, Television
PG     2002     1hr 39min


Larger Image

Movie Details

Actors: Jennifer Garner, Jeffrey D. Sams, Zak Orth, Justin Chambers, Tristan Tait
Director: Christopher Cain
Creators: Willy Kurant, Sabrina Plisco, Andrew Gottlieb, Brent Shields, Richard Welsh, Earl W. Wallace, Julie Garwood
Genres: Westerns, Drama, Television
Sub-Genres: Westerns, Drama, Television
Studio: Hallmark
Format: DVD - Color
DVD Release Date: 09/24/2002
Original Release Date: 04/20/1997
Theatrical Release Date: 04/20/1997
Release Year: 2002
Run Time: 1hr 39min
Screens: Color
Number of Discs: 1
SwapaDVD Credits: 1
Total Copies: 0
Members Wishing: 25
MPAA Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Languages: English

Similar Movies

The Trail to Hope Rose
Director: David S. Cass Sr.
   NR   2005   1hr 29min
Thicker Than Water
Director: David S. Cass Sr.
   NR   2006   1hr 27min

Similarly Requested DVDs

Varsity Blues
Director: Brian Robbins
   R   1999   1hr 46min
Kate Leopold
Director: James Mangold
   PG-13   2002   1hr 58min
King Arthur - The Director's Cut
Widescreen Edition
Director: Antoine Fuqua
   R   2004   2hr 22min
Mr Woodcock
Director: Craig Gillespie
   PG-13   2008   1hr 27min
Message in a Bottle
Director: Luis Mandoki
   PG-13   2009   2hr 11min
Along Came a Spider
   R   2001   1hr 44min
Bee Season
Directors: David Siegel, Scott McGehee
   PG-13   2006   1hr 44min
Pay It Forward
Director: Mimi Leder
   PG-13   2001   2hr 3min
Julie Julia
Director: Nora Ephron
   PG-13   2009   2hr 3min
The Notebook
   PG-13   2005   2hr 3min

Movie Reviews

Julie Garwood--Yes! Rosehill--Heck No!
B. Williams | South Carolina | 07/19/2004
(1 out of 5 stars)

"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 license. 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 the 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 Mary Rose's father's home from England to 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 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. However, 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 off 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 license. KEEP TO THE OVERALL STORY PLEASE!"
This was not the Julie Garwood book at all
(2 out of 5 stars)

"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."
Rose Hill
Gina | New Ulm, Mn United States | 10/17/2003
(1 out of 5 stars)

"So sad, so bad! Readers Beware! I was vastly disapointed in this. I was hoping for that "Garwood magic" and ended up wanting to drop the video off my deck. They totally revamped a wonderful story to garbage. Yes, there was a MaryRose and 4 brothers that went west to Rose Hill and that's where they stop. There is a woman they bring along to cook that never exhisted, there was an indian woman ( I think these 2 were to take Crazy Corey's place). They add a cattle rustler for a love intrest. Cole dies. and there is this Irishman that also didn't exhist.Where Is Maryrose's husband? And MaryRose never goes off to school which is the big part of the story. Where is Mama Rose?? we never get a letter. She is a big part of the story. And Adam marries the Indian woman...Huh? Where'd the story go.. Please don't do a sequel. Take my advice catch it on the Hallmark channel instead of wasting money on this. They missed the stagecoach folks!"
Awful awful awful
Stephanie | Alaska | 09/25/2003
(1 out of 5 stars)

"There was no SPUNK! "For the Roses" is one of my favorite books, and boy was I excited to find in my local video store. What a waste of 90 minutes. There was none of the charm, none of the humor (except for a couple of chuckles), and zero romance!! There was no frustration that came with the Elliot family, no drop dead gorgeous man to sweep Mary Rose off her feet, and couldn't they have found a better Mary Rose? Mary Rose with a short little guy like Fergus?? COME ON! And where was Adam's elegance, and Cole's heart, and Travis's sweetness, and Doug's maturity? As a movie, even without the book, it was terrible. It left alot out and wasn't much better than a summary of the book (an inaccurate summary at that).I have never been more aggravated with a movie."