I'll just add a derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation for this simple Lagrangian, because I think this kind of stuff is fun, and because similar questions have come up before, and I expect them to come up again.
Let [itex]x:[t_1,t_2]\rightarrow\mathbb R^2[/itex] be the curve that minimizes the action. Let [itex]\big\{x_\epsilon:[t_1,t_2]\rightarrow\mathbb R^2\big\}[/tex] be an arbitrary one-parameter family of curves such that [itex]x_0=x[/itex] and [tex]x_\epsilon(t_1)=x_\epsilon(t_2)[/tex][/itex][tex]for all [itex]\epsilon[/itex].<br />
<br />
If it it's not 100% clear already, I mean that each [itex]x_\epsilon[/itex] is a curve, that the one with [itex]\epsilon=0[/itex] is the one that minimizes the action, and that all of these curves have the same endpoints as x.<br />
<br />
We have<br />
<br />
[tex]0=\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 S[x_\epsilon]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 L(x_\epsilon,x'_\epsilon(t))dt=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\bigg(L_{,1}(x(t),x'(t))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t)+L_{,2}(x(t),x'(t))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x'_\epsilon(t) \bigg)dt[/tex]<br />
<br />
The notation [itex]L_{,i}[/itex] means the ith partial derivative of L. There's a trick we can use to rewrite the last term above.<br />
<br />
[tex]L_{,2}(x(t),x'(t))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x'_\epsilon(t)=\frac{d}{dt}\bigg(L_{,2}(x(t),x'(t))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t)\bigg)-\frac{d}{dt}\bigg(L_{,2}(x(t),x'(t))\bigg)\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0[/tex]<br />
<br />
We have<br />
<br />
[tex]L_{,1}(a,b)=\frac{d}{da}\Big(\frac 1 2 mb^2-V(a)\Big)=-V'(a)[/tex]<br />
<br />
[tex]L_{,2}(a,b)=\frac{d}{db}\Big(\frac 1 2 mb^2-V(a)\Big)=mb[/tex]<br />
<br />
so<br />
<br />
[tex]L_{,1}(x(t),x'(t))=V'(x(t))[/tex]<br />
<br />
[tex]L_{,2}(x(t),x'(t))=mx'(t)[/tex]<br />
<br />
This turns the equation into<br />
<br />
[tex]0=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\bigg(-V'(x(t))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t)+mx'(t)\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x'_\epsilon(t) \bigg)dt[/tex]<br />
<br />
[tex]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\bigg(-V'(x(t))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t)+\frac{d}{dt}\bigg(mx'(t)\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t)\bigg)-mx''(t)\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t)\bigg)dt[/tex]<br />
<br />
The last step might look weird, but the only thing I'm doing there is to use the product rule for derivatives. The integral of the middle term is actually =0, because the assumption that all the curves have the same endpoints implies that<br />
<br />
[tex]\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t_1)=\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t_2)=0[/tex]<br />
<br />
All we have left after throwing away the zero term is<br />
<br />
[tex]0=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\bigg(-V'(x(t))-mx''(t)\bigg)\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\bigg|_0 x_\epsilon(t) dt[/tex]<br />
<br />
But the fact that this is supposed to hold for <i>arbitrary</i> one-parameter families of curves that satisfy the necessary requirements means that we can choose that derivative to the right of the parentheses to be any continuous function of t that we want, and the integral is still supposed to be =0. This is only possible if the expression in parentheses is =0, so we end up with<br />
<br />
[tex]mx''(t)=-V'(x(t))=F(x(t))[/tex]<br />
<br />
as promised.[/tex]