Edi_Drums

A confused, mushy film with a spineless, roving plot which, for me, failed to convince as either (i) a remotely believable love story, (ii) persuasive propoganda - indulgent forays into the love triangle being totally at odds with the rousing, 'our great men' voiceovers trying to tie it together at intro and outro - and (iii) a war film in itself (due to the lack of detail given to the true grit and challenges of the training process, let alone the laughable Hollywood liberties, coincidences and close shaves fobbed off again and again).

I found the spinelessness of it all quite a betrayal to the beauty and poise of the three main characters themselves, the true mettle and determination of trainee pilots, as well as the gung ho title. The film actually reminded me of another soppy plot which also falls flat of its title: TANK BATTALION (1958). In both films, the first 10-20 mins purport to going in the direction of something resembling a war film, before descending into something quite different. Films with more mettle, the kind of which I have enjoyed and will stick to, include SUBMARINE COMMAND (1951) and RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP (1958).

I was originally pleased to read that Earthlings was part of a planned trilogy. Dismay, however, set in - tremendously judgmental as I am being, having only watched the two-minute trailer for Unity (2015) - that the latter film appeared to be a celeb bandwagon of diluted, optimistic mush which, for me, only served to highlight the gaping power and impact of Earthlings still further.

Perhaps Shaun and Joaquin knew that if they could just dish up that high-calibre cast of one-line droppers over ever-present soft warm chords and reams of global footage, then they would ultimately broaden the audience of the first installment: yes, a wider audience to watch Earthlings. Watching Earthlings is a gnawing necessity. You and I know this. As one film quote notes, 'Everyone who sees Earthlings tells three people'...

And, of course, every being wants 'unity' (or at least survival, food and shelter). A bit of harmony along the way would be nice too. Can't argue with that. And so, if 99 minutes of warm chords, tears, smiles, bombs and prayers (which repeatedly left me wondering 'When is this extended airline advertisement's signature slogan coming?', or, 'This is one drawn-out UN charity disaster appeal!'), if it results in more people watching Earthlings, WELL BLOODY DONE to the filmmakers.

As other reviewers note, Age 13 seems rigid, clunky and stiffly acted from a 21st-century perspective. However, it may have had wide distribution and a very important and positive impact for viewers at the time.

For me, it was interesting to try and imagine some of the other things that might have been in the minds of people while seeing this kind of material in the mid-1950s. The Korean war? Reconstructing Germany? The music of Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, Little Richard, Duke Ellington or Jackie Wilson? Only someone old enough to remember can really know. Also interesting for me is how Age 13 portrays the institutional approach to child psychoanalysis and psychotherapy at the time. How much things had changed, even twenty years later.

The fantastical runaway sequence, starting at 21 minutes, was reminiscent of the final scene of Francois Truffaut's 400 Blows ('Les 400 Coups') of 1959, in which the troubled young protagonist also flees his environment - but ending with sadness and ambiguity rather than the convenient settling down and happy ending that is cosily portrayed here.