Baseshment
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Maidexpl
Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast
Zlatica
One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.
whpratt1
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.
leah1021
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.
ilixir
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.
Mystique7
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.
