Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Terrence Malick's 'Tree Of Life' reaches for greatness, falls short

A beautiful but oddly hollow experience ultimately disappoints

<p>Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt star in Terrence Malick's epoch-spanning 'Tree Of Life'</p>

Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt star in Terrence Malick's epoch-spanning 'Tree Of Life'

Credit: Fox Searchlight

This is what happens when we turn our filmmakers into religious figures.

I can barely express how much I adore the first three films by Terrence Malick.  I saw "Badlands" for the first time in college, and it was one of those lightning bolt moments for me.  I love everything about that film, about his aesthetic sense, about the performances by Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek.  I think of that movie, and I think of a dozen little moments, about the use of score, about that stunningly gorgeous light that the entire film is bathed in.  "Days Of Heaven" is one I love even more, and that Blu-ray has been played at least three times since I got it.  It's a remarkable film, a simple story but a rich and wonderful slice of history captured as if by magic.  Again, it's the performances I come back to in that one.  Brooke Adams, Richard Gere, and Sam Shepard are all at their very best, and young Linda Manz is so strange, such an unusual narrator, that I find myself wanting to put the film on right now just to hear her voice again.  For the longest time, that's all there was, those two movies, and then we finally got a third film out of him, his adaptation of the James Jones novel "The Thin Red Line," which managed to start life as a fairly straight adaption only to become something totally different in the editing room.  That year, many people tried to pit "Saving Private Ryan" against "Thin Red Line," but aside from being set during WWII, the two films couldn't be more different.  Malick's God's-eye view of men at wartime is a piercing character study and confirmed that even after almost 20 years away from filmmaking, he still maintained a rigid control of every element of what you saw onscreen.

"The New World," however, is a more problematic film for me, and in that movie's weaknesses, I see the seeds that have blossomed in "The Tree Of Life," a beautiful, at times infuriating, undeniably indulgent new effort that comes dangerously close to self-parody at times.  There are many moments in this new film that I think are compelling, and the work by cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki is above reproach, absolutely ravishing.  Any random five minutes of the movie looks like a work of overwhelming film art, and taken simply as a visual experience, "The Tree Of Life" is remarkable.  But the film makes its thematic points early on, and in surprisingly overt fashion, then spends the next two hours making those same points again and again and again.  Considering how much ground the film covers, it has very little to add after making its initial points.

Want More...

Cannes Film Festival?
  • Joliepittcannestop_gallery_primary_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
The basic spine of the film has to do with the O'Briens, a family in Texas in the '50s and the battle of wills between a harsh, demanding father (Brad Pitt) and the oldest of his three sons, Jack.  At the same time, we also see Jack as an adult, played by Sean Penn, grappling with his memories, the death of one of his brothers, and the lessons passed down by his father.  While individual moments between the family members are compelling and even harrowing at times, I can't help but feel that the material is, in the end, somewhat thin.  With "Badlands," Malick dealt with America's love affair with evil in the media at a time when that subject was still fairly fresh, and so many films since then have taken their cues from the way he dealt with it.  Here, his handling of the family dynamic falls into a few basic shapes, repeated many times over the course of the two hours, without ever really illuminating much beyond the idea that Mr. O'Brien is frustrated with his life and determined to push his sons to do better than he did.  There are some nice details, like his love of music and his gift for playing, but there aren't enough of those grace notes.  I'll be honest… I had to look at the press notes to come up with the name of the family, because they are symbols more than characters, and no one more so than Jessica Chastain as the mother of the family.  She's lovely, and there is an ethereal quality to her work, but she exists mainly to either give Brad Pitt disapproving glances or to play with the boys in montage.  She never really becomes a person.  She might be a very good actor, but I'm not sure based on her work here.  I can't be.  She doesn't really do anything.  And I've written at length about how much I admire Pitt, and how I think he is one of our best movie star actors.  He's like a strong character actor wrapped in the skin of a leading man, and I love his eccentricities.  Here, though, he feels muted, underplayed to the point of invisibility.  One might argue that all of this is simply Jack's memory at work, since Penn does bookend the movie, but that ignores the epic digressions Malick makes to the beginning of the world in one of the loveliest and most frustrating sequences I've ever seen.

Yes, we have dinosaurs.  And while I understand that Malick is illustrating what he sees as the two ways through life, the way of grace or the way of nature, I'm not sure I've ever seen as much energy spent to so little effect.  The entire section of the film involving the early days of our planet is gorgeous, and the CGI in the sequence is exactly as good as you'd expect from a meticulous perfectionist like Malick.  But ultimately… so what?  I say this as a fan of experimental cinema, as someone who loves it when people push the boundaries of narrative, and as a fan of Malick's.  The time spent on that sequence could easily have been spent fleshing out the family so that I felt something for them.  This is, ultimately, a movie of surfaces, and that's where I think Malick is on the verge of becoming a sort of joke on himself.  By indulging all of his stylistic flourishes here at the expense of his characters, he has lost track of what made his work great, which was the balance between the two.  I love the characters in "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line" just as much as I love the visual work, but here, I don't feel like I got to know any characters.  It frustrates and saddens me, and it leaves me less interested in revisiting this one, something I'd never expect from a Terrence Malick movie.

I'm glad he's already got another film shot, and that it was something that came together fairly quickly.  Maybe we'll see a more spontaneous Malick in that one.  For now, though, while "The Tree Of Life" is gorgeous throughout and even occasionally affecting, it never achieves the transcendence it so desperately chases.  By the time the film reaches its final "big moment," which I thought was pretty close to dopey, I found myself genuinely upset.  I thought I'd spend my whole morning in a frenzy, digging deeply into the text and subtext of the film, and instead, I find myself hard-pressed to find much more to say about the movie. 

For me, this is a pretty crushing disappointment, something that's hard to admit and even harder to write.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    batphantom

    DAMMIT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PERFECT RRAAAARGH

    No, really, I'm kind of glad you've brought my expectations down for this. I can only hope your current physical condition has altered your perception of the film, even though you probably saw it before you left. Regardless, I'll still be seeing this as soon as possible.

    May 16, 2011 at 10:51AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I wouldn't tell anyone not to see it. I just felt like, for me, this is the first time I'm seeing the Terrence Malick that his detractors talk about, as opposed to the filmmaker I love so much.

      May 16, 2011 at 11:13AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      batphantom Maybe it'll get better with age. But I'm really tired of waiting for a filmmaker to really hit one out of the park, I miss that feeling of euphoria coming out of an incredible movie experience.

      May 16, 2011 at 11:16AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Corey

    Well, I'm glad this came from you and not from one of the many "blockbuster or bust" loving blogs across the web. Sad that it was disappointing, but like this other commenter said, glad that the expectations can go down a bit. Ugh.

    May 16, 2011 at 11:18AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Corey

    I'm still hopeful that this will be a breath of fresh air in this comic book / sequel heavy summer. We have Super 8 and The Tree of Life. That's it.

    May 16, 2011 at 11:19AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Scott

    Every Malick film sucks on first viewing. It's the months and years afterward that make it perfect.

    May 16, 2011 at 11:30AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Nonsense. That's simply not true.

      May 16, 2011 at 11:34AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      dude Apparently, it is true for Scott.

      May 16, 2011 at 6:08PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      AAAutin I have to say, my experiences with Malick coincide with yours, Scott: to wit, the first time I saw both THE THIN RED LINE and BADLANDS, I found them to be plodding and self-indulgent messes; it wasn't until years later that I respected them for their lyricism and grace. In fact, the only Malick film I enjoyed upon first viewing was THE NEW WORLD...which makes me fearful of revisiting it.

      May 16, 2011 at 9:56PM EST


  • Drew—after reading your recent POTC review and this one I began to formulate a question I can’t quite answer, but maybe you can. As a film critic, and a lover of cinema, are you more disappointed when a big commercial film with high expectations (i.e. POTC) fails miserably for you, or when a more personal film (i.e. Tree of Life) doesn’t live up to your expectations but may be a decent movie in its own right?

    Maybe a simpler way of saying it is do you get more disillusioned when the big budget doesn’t produce excitement, or when the art doesn’t inspire?

    May 16, 2011 at 11:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew With each film, what is important is what that particular film is trying to do or say, and my disappointment or excitement is based on how well or how poorly it meets its own goals.

      I hate a big lazy blockbuster because of the waste of resources and because those films are meant to be fun, and when they're not, they're deadly.

      With more personal films, I have to judge them based on what they're trying to communicate and how well they do it.

      May 16, 2011 at 11:36AM EST
  • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

    Stormshadow4life

    I've only seen 2 of his movies: Days of Heaven and The New World. I didn't care for Days at all (mostly because I couldn't stand the little girl....but partly because it was kind of boring). New World was okay, but a bit long. I should probably rent Thin Red Line on blurary one of these days

    May 16, 2011 at 12:00PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Whatever

    The reason i'm suspicious of this review is because a lot of critics shitted on the thin red line and (especially) the new world at the time of their release. Both are wonderful films that have since been reassessed as masterworks.

    And the stuff in this review about needing more time to flesh out the characters, in a malick film, just doesn't ring true. Maybe you need to see this one again.

    May 16, 2011 at 12:13PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Again with the claim that people don't "get" Malick the first time around. I loved "The Thin Red Line" immediately, and my review, written the night I saw the film, still sums up my feelings about the movie. With "The New World," I am actually less enamored of it now. I don't particularly like Malick's director's cut compared to the original cut he screened for critics and released to LA theaters, and I think it is a decent but not great film.

      The characters in his films have always been rich and interesting. If you disagree, fine, but I love Kit and Holly and Bill and Abby and Linda and Witt... and I don't see anyone in this film that is even close to their equal.

      Maybe you should see this one once before you tell me what's wrong with my opinion.

      May 16, 2011 at 12:21PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      B http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-thin-red-line

      May 16, 2011 at 12:24PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Scott Drew, maybe YOU get Malick the first time around, but a lot of people don't. I don't. Most people I know don't. Same thing with Kubrick.

      I hated Thin Red Line when I first saw it, and most of the initial reviews were mixed. Now it's uniformly heralded as a masterpiece.

      Your opinion of this one might not change, but I don't think it's unfair to note that a lot of people don't like Malick films within 30 seconds of the credits rolling and then come around on them.

      May 16, 2011 at 12:40PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I can only write from my own perspective, and when I'm told "Malick movies always suck at first" or that I need to see them several times to get them, that's not true. Not for me. Repeat viewings may reveal more to love with those earlier films, but that doesn't mean I didn't have a strong initial reaction, one that simply didn't happen this time.

      May 16, 2011 at 12:58PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Byron

    Drew, just came out of the 2pm screening. Couldn't agree with you more. It's a beautiful, poetic, lyrical film and I cannot in good conscience recommend it. And I'll be first in line for his next film. Hey go big or go home. He went big. And it didn't work for me.

    May 16, 2011 at 12:15PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    mike

    God Days of Heaven is so awesome. I haven't had a chance to check out The Thin Red Line on Blu-Ray yet, but Days is pretty much the pinnacle of the format to date. Still hoping I'll find something to like in Tree of Life.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:03PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I'm sure you will. It's not a "bad" film, it's just not the transcendent experience it means to be. There are any number of beautiful images and moments within.

      May 16, 2011 at 2:13PM EST
  • D6vcfgnmzaynelrqpgbpquhchgncey625xnivp-lx6j410bi7ecsbvkhqnr8nfoq_talkback_profile

    lightscameraachtung!

    Sorry to hear this. Malick's movies are the type that seem to give me a gut reaction intially and then I'll watch again and savor like a fine wine. It sounds like I'll only be drinking in this movie once.

    This type of review gives me a healthy atitude of "How bad could it be?" going into it. That's not a bad thing, since I could be pleasantly suprised by some scenes or the whole movie. This is why I love film and its subjective nature.

    May 16, 2011 at 1:19PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jay

    In the interest of balancing the scales....From the Guardian - "Terrence Malick's mad and magnificent film descends slowly, like some sort of prototypical spaceship: it's a cosmic-interior epic of vainglorious proportions, a rebuke to realism, a disavowal of irony and comedy, a meditation on memory, and a gasp of horror and awe at the mysterious inevitability of loving, and losing those we love." Aaah, opinions, eh?

    May 16, 2011 at 3:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tupid Enward

    The AICN style (AKA Drew, Harry) of review-writing is terrible. Plots and characters are inadequately described. Examples are few and confusing. Emotional outbursts are frequent and confusing. I can't tell what this movie is about or anything that happens in it based on this review. One is required to read another review just to understand this one.

    May 16, 2011 at 6:12PM EST Reply to Comment
    • 500full_talkback_profile

      velocityknown So you want a plot synopsis then, not a movie review?

      May 16, 2011 at 6:33PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I'm sorry I didn't include every detail of the film for you, but I more than adequately described the plot of the film. Perhaps you missed it. Try again.

      May 16, 2011 at 7:46PM EST
  • 3043359090_065080dc5e_talkback_profile

    dyikini

    I'm sure you're genuinely trying to judge the film based on what it set out to be, but it sounds a bit like you plain had expectations that weren't met with this one. To be honest, Malick doesn't speak through his films in the most accessible manner and you see something like the trailer for "Tree Of Life" and it could either be mumbo jumbo you plain don't understand first time around and grow to love it or otherwise, or it turns out to be amazing from the get go. I loved Badlands & The New World right away, The Thin Red Line, while it affected me immediately, it took me a while to 'get it' completely and appreciate it for what it actually is, besides a literal narrative story. With Tree Of Life, I'm almost expecting it to be over my head or something, so am thinking if it's not as complex as you'd anticipated Drew, maybe many will like it more than his other films. Anyway, just thoughts.

    May 16, 2011 at 7:38PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I never saw the trailer, and I had no expectations beyond "it's a new film by Terrence Malick." I've been very careful not to spend pages and pages hyping it, instead waiting to see what he did. I just don't think it works completely as a film on its own terms, and I think his stylistic tics are almost suffocating this time around.

      I am certain we'll see a wide range of reactions on this one. This is my honest one.

      May 16, 2011 at 7:45PM EST
    • 3043359090_065080dc5e_talkback_profile

      dyikini Fair enough... It's almost like in certain circles Malick just gets a free pass because he has been so brilliant before, but yeah, what if that results in his work or how we perceive it. Is this what happens when we turn our film makers into gods? Anyway, was a good review to read. Hope I feel differently!

      May 17, 2011 at 1:37AM EST
  • Jay_sherman_talkback_profile

    ParanoidAndroid

    I can't say I'm surprised by your reaction to the film. I would love for Malick to make another fantastic film but I wasn't expecting that out of this film after being underwhelmed by The New World.

    May 16, 2011 at 7:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    I. S.

    Part of me wonders whether it could be fixed with a re-edit. On the other hand, Malick had a year to tinker with it after missing the last Cannes deadline, and put no less than five editors on it, they say. So it sounds like he got wanted, even if it took decades to work out what that was.

    May 16, 2011 at 8:41PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    .

    Havning not seen the film I can't point out any overt flaws in your review but I have question, is the central philosophical question of strength vs grace, creating ones life or co creating ones life with the various oppurtunities presented, etc... one that pertains to you? I would think this would play a huge role in one's relationship to the film.

    May 16, 2011 at 9:08PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ike

    '...and then we finally got a third film out of him, his adaptation of the James Jones novel "The Thin Red Line," which managed to start life as a fairly straight adaption only to become something totally different in the editing room.'

    Wait -- are you saying that "The Thin Red Line" started out with something resembling an actual PLOT, a real narrative, with actual character development, and that Malick slashed it to ribbons in the editing room? Holy Toledo, no wonder I didn't like it. I've only ever seen that one Malick film and wasn't inspired to seek out any others. And I'd like to think my mind is fairly open to avant-garde experiences. The cinematography was nice though.

    May 16, 2011 at 11:05PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    The Moviegoer

    How very interesting and how very sorry I am that you had this experience. I say that selfishly in that, based on your past writings, you do appear to understand Malick and by your resignation this is a lesser film from him. 

    Regardless of whether you are ultimately correct, and as a critical viewer, I will reserve my response, I expect this is one of those moments you'll always remember as a film lover, or connoisseur, or addict, or geek, or whathave you. This is one of those moments you will never forget and sadly, it will be due to expectations that were beyond the norm.

    But of course you should look for that cinematic moment, that being the greatest high of all as a cinema goer. It's expected that you demand there be brilliance in film - that there be films that defy criticism and demand repeated viewings. Expectations of brilliance is rare and for good reason, it's the worst letdown for any true cinephile. A fall from that height can be devastating, even if the film is good, or even great, it's still not brilliant. It's not one of *those* rare films.

    And those films are reason enough to keep going back. Without those expectations of brilliant art, there's no reason for any of it.

    My condolences, I hope you are wrong, but in any event your experience was what it was and I know that it wasn't what you were hoping for - that transcendent film experience. It's usually too much to ask for but in those rare few situations... it's just about right and never an easy letdown when it doesn't work out.

    May 17, 2011 at 12:11AM EST Reply to Comment


  • **Spoiler...y? Maybe?**

    I've been contemplating this film since I got of one of the NYC press screenings, and as expected my opinion keeps evolving. At the end of the day, I'd say I liked it, but I agree with just about all of your points on the downsides to this film. Just like you said about the dinosaurs - "so what?" I mean, everybody loves dinosaurs, but where was the payoff with that scene? None of that, or the broader existential portions about the creation of life, seemed to come back around in any way to tie into the main plot of the film with the O'Briens (at least that I could pick up on from this viewing). For a filmmaker that's so meticulous with his craft, it's a bit infuriating that such prominent elements can end up being this arbitrary.

    May 17, 2011 at 1:56AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    reviewreachesforrelevancefallsshort

    you lost me at your critique of 'the new world'. that's a brilliant film. the fact that you didn't get it keeps me from reading the rest of your review. i'll just formulate my own opinion, tyvm.

    May 17, 2011 at 6:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Aren't you a clever monkey with your little name there?

      I'm still trying to remember where, as a critic, I told people (A) not to see the movie or (B) to not have an opinion of their own.

      May 18, 2011 at 7:34AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    gingersoll

    Well you win some and you loose some. This reminds me of The Fountain, a film I found to be comically vapid but which others felt deeply and passionately about. I envy them, but I cannot lie and say I loved the film.
    Maybe Tree of Life will be a win for me? Sorry it was a loose for you, Drew.

    May 18, 2011 at 10:11AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Robin

    Thanks for not straddling the fence like other reviewers who won't rave about the film but refuse to say what they are all dancing around. The film is swinging for the fences but if its not a strike out its a foul ball.

    Every review is saying it but they aren't saying it.

    May 18, 2011 at 3:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Palefire

    Characters were never the draw for me in any Malick film since Badlands. And even in that film he appeared more concerned with using his characters to explore the themes than cutting them up to see how they tick. But I see all his films as a progression in finding the perfect cinematic experience. I think the closest he has come to this cinematic perfection is with The New World. I hope that Tree of Life tops that one.

    May 19, 2011 at 12:33AM EST Reply to Comment


  • I think your definition of experimental film is off because you're so concerned with the characters. From everything I've read this is a fantastic work of experimental film, which characteristically is much more concerned with what you can do with the actual film and camera to make new images in new ways and sequences than it is about characters. He seems to have slowly transitioned into much more experimental territory with each new film. And all I've heard about this is that it's beautiful and poetic, which is about 80% of what experimental film tries to do with the other 20 being making it meaningful and thematic, which you say he beats you over the head with over and over (another characteristic of experimental I've found). So, although I haven't seen it, I can't come up with a reason why this would be considered a failure on any level.

    May 19, 2011 at 1:12AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Mike D "Like, he just didn't get the poetry, man."

      May 19, 2011 at 1:20PM EST
    • Thanks for bringing an intelligent comment to the conversation

      May 19, 2011 at 6:47PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Robin It you are going to give an experimental film a pass on everything because its 'experimental' by your definition then your like those parents who reward their kids for just showing up, or have sports teams where there are no losers. What you have heard about the film is its beautiful and poetic. And you have also heard it is very tedious and trying at times even for Malick enthusiasts. These are inconvenient truths you choose to ignore I guess. But they run consistently through almost all the reviews.

      May 20, 2011 at 1:08AM EST
    • I'm not giving it a free pass to do whatever it wants because it's experimental. What I'm saying is that it seems to succeed at being experimental in its nature. And I believe the reason people find it tedious is because they want it so badly to conform to a semblance of narrative structure that they have in their heads. They want him to go more in depth with the story of the family or want him to give more of a plot structure when, it seems to me, the film clearly isn't supposed to be about the family or any overarching story. I'm not simply ignoring that people think it's tedious because it doesn't fit with my analysis. Stan Brakhage is widely considered the best experimental filmmaker to ever live thus far. Watch ANY of his films and I'd be willing to bet you find them tedious and trying. That doesn't make them bad films, it just means you're not fond of the experimental style.

      May 20, 2011 at 1:25AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Andrew

    I'm pretty surprised by the number of commenters who haven't seen the film but decide to criticize this review. I just walked out of watching the film in LA, and I had to find a review that put into words exactly how I felt. This is that review. I wanted to badly to like this movie. I haven't seen any other Malick movies, besides a bit of The New World on an airplane, and if that means my opinion is invalidated, so be it. But I was so excited to see a Malick film and was so ready to love it. I spent about 3/4 of it convincing myself of reasons why I liked it. Then I finally realized that I actually didn't care for any of these characters. Whether they were "real" or not, I just didn't want to spend any more time with any of them. I didn't come to any new conclusions about humanity because, as you pointed out, the dynamics of the family are pretty firmly established in the beginning and then repeated ad nauseum. The dinosaur/universe sequence was incredibly indulgent. And the ending had absolutely no meaning to me. I realize he left it unexplained so we could all theorize what it was on our own, but considering he seemed to have such a fixed view of it himself, I'd have liked to have some clue. Which was my problem with most of it. For a movie that was supposedly open-ended and open to interpretation, most of his images seemed to have very fixed, planned meanings. We just weren't privy to hear what they are. Anyway, I left frustrated, and I appreciated reading a verbalization of my movie watching experience tonight.

    May 30, 2011 at 3:49AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      d Amen to your response and I feel the same way...and speaking of Amen..was all that Diva mess of Opera necessary at the end of everything?? I agree with you, I wanted badly to like this film and then I realized it was not as subjective and open as I had hoped for.

      June 16, 2011 at 5:38PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Shawn

    This movie finally came to Davenport, Iowa where I currently reside. Good lord, I agree Drew. What a terrible movie.

    July 28, 2011 at 12:45PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    McWhat?

    Is McWeeny a real name? Outrageous

    April 22, 2012 at 12:26AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web