Another not so terrible romantic dramedy. The true life inspired story is somewhat interesting. As much as I don't like Tatum, I genuinely like McAdams. He doesn't ruin the movie either, he actually conveys emotion pretty well in this. Still not my kind of movie, and has its flaws, but it was watchable. If you have to, OR want to, watch a chick flick.

Well acted romantic movie

very good

I got this movie because I thought it was a romance. Then, out of the blue, the amnesic girl turns to her husband and asks: “Who is President?” I thought, what a weird question for a woman who can’t remember her own husband! And obviously, she was not only informed who it was, but that she also voted for him… My husband and I rolled our eyes and quit. Gosh, it is impossible to watch a movie without having to stand some kind of left-wing message. Can these people just make movies for entertaining purposes for a change?! (The seething rage abundantly displayed by the hunchback is so disproportional I strongly suggest the poster should look for some kind of help—stat!) NOTICE: Attempts to censor (“Report this”) my comments will be fiercely fought under the aegis of American Libraries’ beloved principles: Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Read, Intellectual Freedom.

very cute movie! plus i saw channing tantums butt. LOL

This is such a cute movie ! Rachel Mcadams and Channing Tantum are two of my favorite actors. Rachel is beautiful and Channing is HOT ! plus they have amazing movie chemistry together. There acting was so real. It made me think that they were a couple in real life. It's very touching , and I like how it's a true story in real life. I didn't give it five stars because I would've like If they got married again and kissed in the end. I was happy when they started dating again,but it was sad how she didn't regain her memory, and didn't really get back with him. Other than that a really sweet movie. *sigh* If only love can happen like that in real life or to me loll !!! Four Stars.

I was on the verge of not posting a comment when I spotted that dive in the depths of stupidity in that comment about managing to find a leftist agenda in a question about who the president is. But then some people see their future in the random arrangement of sodden tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. Just not anyone with a brain. Story? McAdams and Tatum meet cute, fall in love, get married, and live the bourgeois artsy boho lifestyle until she gets rear-ended but not in that good way, but by a truck driver on an icy Chicago street. She’s in a coma and wakes but doesn’t recognize her husband. And the story proceeds from there mostly and in a manner mostly industrial. It would appear that the audience is supposed to be responding “Oh, will love survive?,” or so I guess. I originally wrote "thinking" but that was the last thing this film wanted people to do. This one is supposed to be, according to one reviewer, ‘the perfect movie for anyone who have ever been in love.’ Fox News said that? Should I be seeing some sodden, stupid rightist agenda in that? Not worth the candle. Apparently ‘love’ is now a drug and one that makes you stupid, or is it just that it makes filmmakers stupid, because while mostly the performances were adequate or more than adequate to their purposes, and worked to serve the intentions of the film (and I have to assume the filmmaker), was there ever a moment that this film provided an emotion that was not simulated? (Yes, I know it is a movie and all emotions are mere simulation. But I am talking about the audience being required to have no independent will, but merely the inclination to go through the motions like nothing so much as one of Dr. Pavlov's pound puppies? Was that their role in this construct? To pay their money, and sit there and just go through the motions?) Yes, boys and girls, call me a cynic if it makes you more comfortable, but The Vow is to love as Taco Bell is to Mexican cuisine. Or Mitt Romney is to conservative thinking. End of story. My apologies to the actors for any perceived disrespect to their work or to their work ethic that might result. Of course, this is the movie (Hell, why give it that much distinction), er, a movie that should provide clinical evidence that “romance” is a drug, if not then it is a ‘drug substitute.’ God give me some Douglas Sirk. He might have known what to do with the secondary characters, the parents, right? Yeah, well, maybe. Not that he wouldn’t have known, but as I go back in my mind and remember his films, I can see that he might still have not given them a great deal to do. It’s not what you do, is it? But he would have been capable of it. This director? I just don’t know. Oh, and yes, Ms. McAdams has a marvelous smile.

Rachel's smile lit up the entire screen. The movie is worth watching just for that alone.

I like how it's based on a true story. It's a good movie but sad.

The most interesting point in this movie is the significance the title has for Rachel McAdams' parents. Wasn't McAdams also an artist in "The Time Traveler's Wife" and a woman deeply in love...and in great suffering caused by the relationship...? Anyway, it's not a bad movie.