"The Vow" 2012 is a romantic drama with some comedic moments thrown in. Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum play a young married couple whose lives take a tragic fate when they suffer a car accident. 

McAdams's character, Paige, isn't horribly disfigured or anything like that, but she suffers brain trauma which has blocked all memory of Tatum's character Leo. 

Leo tries to get regain her memory by trying to have her fall in love with him again. 

That's the movie. These romantic dramas get manufactured every year, and I have seen hundreds of them. However, I really liked the movie. 

 It's true that these types of movies aren't original, but that doesn't bother me too much as long as the product is good. Like I said, I liked it primarily because Rachel and Channing were very good in the leads. 

It's true that perhaps the "brain trauma" aspect of the plot could have been worked a bit more, I mean Paige remembers a lot of things that you wouldn't expect someone whose had brain trauma to remember, so this part of the movie could come out as implausible to some people. 

 However, most people who have enjoyed the film don't care about that. This is a love story first and foremost, so it's more about seeing the characters going through the motions and trying to get those magic feelings for each other again 

 The performances are excellent. Channing and Rachel have great chemistry. The acting is never forced and the characters are believable. 

Once we learn about Paige's past, we kind of understand why it's hard for her to remember Leo or at least not embrace it: Part of her life has been burdened by her overbearing father (played by Sam Neil) who doesn't quite respect her decisions, an ex-boyfriend Jeremy (Scott Speedman) who can't quite let her go, and other personal issues. 

Rachel McAdams plays her character well. She is pretty, nice personality, but a little unsure of herself. 

Tatum is good as the guy next door whose willing to put up with a lot all in the name of love. In fact, small parts of the movie are actually narrated by Leo as he tries to tell the audience what love really is. It's a nice addition to make the movie stand out a bit more from just being another movie. I liked his discussion of "moments of impact" in the film.

All in all it's just a nice romantic movie. Some might find some issues with the science part of the movie or say it's predictable, but it's a movie that you see to make you laugh and feel good at the end.

Description	Review	Buy Now
Inspired by a true story, The Vow tells the tale of a husband (Channing Tatum) who must regain the love of his wife (Rachel McAdams) after a coma steals the past five years of her memories. Starring: Channing Tatum, Rachel McAdams Directed by: Michael Sucsy Runtime: 1 hour 44 minutes Release year: 2012 Studio: Screen Gems	read more	$12.99

They remade Footloose? I groaned when I even thought about how bad this was going to be. I liked the original, and didn't even consider seeing this when it came out at the theatre. Flash forward to a cold and rainy night, and my teenage kids decide to rent this on pay per view. I groan again, thinking how awful this is going to be. I couldn't even watch it, so I puttered around the house doing everything else but sit there and watch a somewhat iconic movie be destroyed. Two hours later, and my kids could not stop talking about it. They loved it. Curious, I plopped down and watched it. They wanted to see it again. I was shocked. The first thing that grabs your attention is how my kids kept thinking the clothes and hair were cool. I told them that in the ancient 80's, we used to flip our collars up, have our pants cinched at the ankles, and wear our hair short on the sides and long on top. I also told them we used to dance. It was a blast from the past, but a bridge to the present. The story seemed fresh to the teenagers, and was even fresh to me. The dancing is great. The acting is decent, and this movie is fun. There are a few scenes that are not appropriate for younger kids (a girl having sex for the first time, drug references, underage drinking, a girl getting slapped by her boyfriend, some swearing), but very tame stuff when compared to the groundbreaking stuff John Hughes did in the 80's. It was a way to connect with the kids. The movie is certainly way better than expected. Way better than the garbage some remakes are. Well done. Well done indeed.

Description	Review	Buy Now
City kid Ren McCormack moves to a small town where rock 'n' roll and dancing have been banned, and his rebellious spirit shakes up the populace. Starring: Kenny Wormald, Julianne Hough Directed by: Craig Brewer Runtime: 1 hour 54 minutes Release year: 2011 Studio: Paramount .	read more	$14.99

All the ingredients for a fine contemporary comedy are here, including a pertinent theme (the difficulty of finding love amid career obligations and easy sex) and an assortment of courageous young actors (Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Greta Gerwig, Olivia Thirlby). Unfortunately the director is Ivan Reitman, who's never made a more emotionally complex film than Meatballs (1979). Telling the story of a med student (Portman) and an aspiring TV writer (Kutcher) who try to navigate a "sex friendship" without falling in love, Reitman settles for easy laughs, and his off-color jokes about menstruation and drug use feel like greeting-card gags. The charismatic leads keep this watchable, but it's a waste of their talents.

Description	Review	Buy Now
Academy Award Winner Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Ashton Kutcher (What Happens in Vegas...) star in the hilarious hit comedy that takes a modern look at what happens when friends-in-need do the deed. Emma is a busy doctor who offers her best friend Adam an unconventional relationship with one rule: No Strings Attached. But when a fling becomes a thing, can sex friends stay best friends?.	read more	$9.99

There are only so many ways you can tell a superhero story, especially through a movie and you have the dodgy task of taking a popular superhero with the elements of his story try to breathe new life into it and adapt it to the big screen in a way that can reach a wide audience; families, kids, teenagers, adults and generations while at the same time making it appeal to the die hard superfans and collectors. This is the hard task that the 2012 reboot of the Spider-Man franchise The Amazing Spider-Man is attempting to achieve. Superhero films have received a revival in interest new since the first decade of the new millennium and throughout the 2000's to the current day. It's become a popular trend in Hollywood and already we've seen plenty of superheros head to the big screen; some with great mainstream success at the box office (X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman) and some poorly received (Daredevil, Superman Returns, Green Lantern). Spider-man is one of those superhero characters that caught on most as a movie franchise and was successful enough to spawn two sequels. The trilogy of Spidey films of the 00's was mostly well received but when attempts of re-singing actors for a fourth title failed there was only two options: 1) Give up on making more Spider-Man films in the near foreseeable future or 2) Get some fresh faces to replace the already established actors and come up with an alternate take on the story of one of the greatest Marvel characters and superheroes of all time. This reboot is a different Spider-man altogether and in this case it's actually a good thing. Garfield as Spider-Man was what was going to make or break this movie and his Peter Parker is a fresh one with slight twists that I think audiences will approve of. The retelling of the Spiderman story works here because they did an actual reboot, using the same characters and comic universe but it's a different take it's obviously not a remake yet it's not a re-imagining either being that this character has already plenty of history to chose from. If you watched any of the 3 previous ones you will be able to tell that the angle and tone they have here are very different. The back story already is quite different, they explain more about Peter Parker's parents, in this one his love interest is Gwen Stacy not Mary Jane Watson (and very different from the Gwen Stacy we saw in 2007's Spider-Man 3 too), the villain (Dr. Curtis "Curt" Conors/The Lizard), the way the events happen (how Peter gains his powers etc.) is not quite the same and the way its presented is unique which is all a plus in my book. A lot of us were wondering how Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) would fare as the lead role compared to Tobey McGuire (as if there weren't going to be any comparisons) and that it would directly make the biggest impact on the fate (and perhaps sequels) of this reboot. I must say I was impressed. MacGuire was cast for the trilogy of Spider-Man films from 2002-07 and I think most would say Tobey pulled off the job really well, came off as likeable and people tend to identify him in his role of the spandex web-slinger. Looking back McGuire was suitable and a good choice for the role but Garfield brings something else to the table, portrays the role different with more flair, more attitude. Not as shy and innocent as Macguire's portrayal of Spidey. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man you can sense from the get-go is in ways better or improved on MacGuire's if comparisons must be made. He doesn't look as weak, is a bit more like the High-Schooler you would imagine, has the smart comments, is more aggressive and is taller and fills the suit better. Enough has been said, Garfied makes a rather convincing Peter Parker, student and Peter Parker as the masked hero. Those are both different Spider-Man overall, different takes on the same character and each have their positives but in the end I think I'd take Garfied over McGuire any day (no disrespect to Tobey intended I thought his take on the role was excellent and certainly put his stamp on the character). Emma Stone was very believable as Gwen Stacy and has that edge of the character she portrays and she looks the part, she has actual chemistry with Garfield and although we know her more for her comedy acting roles (Superbad, House Bunny, Easy A and others) she has no problem playing a more serious role and I could well see her do more of this type of acting. Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Fields) were nicely cast although I had grown very fond of the actors who played them in the trilogy of Spidey films and thought they were more effective than they are here. Rhys Ifanswas fantastic as Dr. Curt Conors/The Lizard and although there are lots of special effects for his transformation to being the Lizard I thought the human counterpart was played quite well and made his background story come through nicely. Also notable was Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy, Gwen's father. The fighting and action scenes are probably the greatest improvements over the first 3 titles. Not that it was bad in any of those films but the way they captured the action in this one was fantastic and simply superior and are bad-er and mean-er. Those sequences were well executed which is important in a superhero movie. The stunts came off looking somewhat less surreal yet amazing to watch. Instead of the hero shooting web from his wrists they go back to the original story with the artificial web-shooters which was a good idea. We even manage to feel something for the villain and the Lizard's backstory was always one of my favorites and the character looks fantastic on the big screen with details and texture; this is one cool looking villain, I cannot imagine Lizard being done better. I was very happy when they chose Kurt Conors as the villain and the result turned out fantastic, at least they didn't take one of the previously seen villains for this first chapter in the cinematic saga. Not that I'm against using a previous bad guy again but someone else was a good choice to begin. Something that I thought was particularly great is that we saw Peter Parker as a child a further glimpse at what made him who he is. In fact the first few minutes are of an "origin of Peter Parker" scene that gives the viewer more insight on the character. What they did with the story, the hero, the villain, the romance, the stunts is commendable, especially considering that this is taking an already successful movie franchise and trying to revive and do something different yet interesting with it that would keep fans an moviegoers excited about it. On a quick note I don't have much to say on the film's 3D probably because while it's not bad, it's not a big presence and the focus was mostly on the story and as a result there are very few times when the 3D stands out in any way.

Video Source: Youtube

There are similarities between this film and the original Spider-Man but there is plenty of differences too (there's only so much you can change) and it doesn't come off as watching the same movie twice this series is moving forwards. Ultimately the fans will decide how this film will go down in movie history (and superhero movie history). All I have to say is I got my money and time's worth with The Amazing Spiderman, I was certainly not disappointed, I was pleasantly surprised and found it very enjoyable; definitely worthy of the "Summer Blockbuster" title. It think it's safe to say that the "amazing" in the title very well reflects the viewing experience as a whole and that this is one that fans and non-fans will enjoy. The highest rating, highest recommendation. *****

Product Detail	Review	Buy Now
The Amazing Spider-Man. A teenage Peter Parker grapples with both high school and amazing super-human crises as his alter-ego Spider-Man. Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone Directed by: Marc Webb Runtime: 2 hours 17 minutes Release year: 2012 Studio: Columbia Pictures	read more	$12.99