MovieChat Forums > I.D. (1995) Discussion > This film was rubbish

This film was rubbish

posted 21 years ago by clemo-1
36 replies | jump to latest

Reading through the comments on here I cannot believe those that said it was realistic. For a start the firms all wore scarves, hats and club shirts which is totally unrealistic and also stupid especially as they were trying to make out that they were an organised crew. The real low point in this film for me, was seeing one of the characters fire eating in the rock. How laughable is that. There was no attempt to recreate the casual style adopted by real football hooligans and the fight scene on the terrace (Valley Parade (I think)) was highly laughable as no clued up hooligan would get involved in a terrace ruck intentionally in this age of CCTV.

I recently watched the football factory an although this was also bollocks it did capture the flavour of what the football scene was all about in terms of dress, style and even music.

[–] cougarric 20 years ago

A lot of films aren't entirely accurate. However, this doesn't make it a bad film as this is a very enjoyable one. The only downside of it in my opinion is that it does glorify the scum element of the UK that do nothing except taint our national sport.

[–] cactusx 20 years ago

I think the hooligans in ID were more 1970s Bovver Boys than modern casuals. What I did find really unrealistic was Trevor's character. He dresses like an old man when out with the firm. Also, how is it possible that absolutely no one on the coach in the first game apart from John noticed him cowering under his seat?

CPFC-Pride of Selhurst

[–] shockabsorber 20 years ago

Well this is set in the 80s (I think - judging by John's growing a mullet), so CCTV wouldn't have been as much of an issue then. Also the film was trying to make out that they *weren't* an organised crew.

[–] nigel_denning 20 years ago

Use your brain, mate!

This film was made 9 years before you posted your comment!

How much CCTV was there then? You micht as well say that Pride and Prejudice wasn't realistic coz we don't go around in Horse and Carriages now!!!

I can tell you CATEGORICALLY that set against football violence in the mid 1990's this film was disturbingly accurate!!

[–] skekurc 20 years ago

The film was actually made in 1989. IMDB have 1995 down for some reason - maybe theatrical release - I am not sure.

I find the comment about CCTV a bit odd considering that, within the first 5 minutes the police run through CCTV footage of some terrace fights. Also John himself is caught on CCTV "Do you know who that runt is John?" ... "No-one I know" ....

Different football fighting happened in different ways. the film depicts one way in which it happened. As per the initial brief the four undercover guys get, their job was about finding the ring leaders and not the 'footsoldiers' played by Sean Pertwee and his chums. Only towards the end does John get close to the 'generals'.

I *beep* love you gumbo

[–] Daveyhaze 20 years ago

Why do you think this film was made in 1989 because I can assure you it was made in 95.
The scenes on the ficticious Tyneburn Market were shot in Rotherham in the UK, as were a lot of outdoor scenes where they are runing from the Wapping lot, and the first coach ride to the away game is also shot in Rotherham as you can see the famous cooling towers at Tinsley viaduct in the background.
Anyway the reason I bring this up is I live in Rotherham and remember them filming around the streets, definitely either late 94 or 95 as I would have been 15 at the time. I remember walking through Rotherham centre and seeing loads of blokes charging down the street and riot vans everywhere, wondered what the hell was happening at first!
Also several friends of mine were extras in the film so I can find out exactly when they shot those scenes, but I can 100% guarantee that it was not made in 89 and IMDB have listed it correctly.

[–] brontiustrex 20 years ago

This could be $hite, but I heard that like Scum this was made as a tv fair before being remade for the big screen. Maybe this is where the debate lies.

The constipated mathematician worked it out with a pencil.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dyker_the_horse 19 years ago

You're thinking of Alan Clarke's "The Firm" with Gary Oldman. That was made in 1989.

[–] clemo-1 17 years ago

"I can tell you CATEGORICALLY that set against football violence in the mid 1990's this film was disturbingly accurate!!"

Well if you believe that this film was accurate then quite simply you have never been involved in football violence.

[–] joe_scott19 16 years ago

"I can tell you CATEGORICALLY that set against football violence in the mid 1990's this film was disturbingly accurate!! "

Bolloxs mate, you don't know what ya talking about, they weren't even casuals!

[–] kevin-218 20 years ago

Just a quickie.

Most films are not accurate all the way through. It certainly does not mean they are rubbish.
This is an excellent film throughout with great acting, despite flaws in the storyline.

Also, the movie is set in the mid 80's when CCTV was used, but not in the same way it is today.
When I used to travel to away games in the mid 80's I remember some fans throwing stuff on the pitch and at home fans and then waving at the camera's or taunting the police... they never used to get into trouble... Which always annoyed me.

Regarding the date of it's release... It must have been before 1995 because I bought the video in 1992.

Best wishes

Kev

[–] zen18531 20 years ago

"Regarding the date of it's release... It must have been before 1995 because I bought the video in 1992. "

And I remember watching it in 1993 on video... I know it was '93 as I was in plaster with a smashed up leg.

Re the comments about the 'casual scene' - remember that not every firm adopted the casual style, some positively rejected it, feeling that dressed casual allowed other firms to bottle in and hide in the crowd. Certainly in the 70's, 80's and early 90's practically all the firms wore colours anyway.

Remembe that *no* film is 100% unrealistic, and evern if a film was directed with the purpose of reality, it cannot be achieved. For example, two people can witness or experience an event, side by side. Their descriptions will be close, but never quite tally due to differences in perspective, and later memory. 100% authenticity is all that can be stived for.

Does ID do that? No, but then does the media, FA or government? When English football hooliganism was allegedly at its height in the 90's, England fans were branded the worst in the world. Yet the continental clubs had far worse problems, which were never reported on let alone commented on. Despite violence that made the English look positively well behaved by comparison, UEFA never took action against the vast majority of clubs - or national teams/fans - and instead banned English clubs and fans. Heck, look at the Irish game, hijacked by the extreme right. Even that was 'covered up' and instead blamed on hooligans, for political reasons. But I digress.

IMHO the film sets out to depict how one person loses their identity - forgets who they are - during the course of an undercover operation, gradually becomming that which they initially despise. It isn't a plot twist/turn, heck the title and strap line tell one that! FWIW, its a fear of all undercover operations, both from a "management" and operator perspective. I think it does it well, and the artistic licence works in its favour.

[–] mwaddams 20 years ago

A classic case of too many cooks and executive producers not understanding their subject matter. Having met the writer of the original script, he knew entirely what he was on about regarding the terrace/casual scene. The scarfs and strips were added by the production team and the fire eating was orignally written as someone fooling around with a can of lighter refill. I think it was at that point he said he walked away from the whole thing.

[–] shizou666 20 years ago

Parallax pictures have this film listed as 1995 on their filmography.
Metropolis Filmproduktion also have it listed as 1995.
On the Back of the Video next to Parallax/Metropolis is MCMXCIV (1994)
It can't be any made any earlier than 1994.
First VHS release was on Polygram in 1995.

'I have to return some videotapes'

[–] graewil 20 years ago

Definitely made before 1995. That was my first year at Uni and a whole bunch of us were sitting in my room in Halls watching this on video.

I think it may have been filmed as early as 1989, but probably made v early 90's and had a long delayed release, possibly due to the anti-hooliganism drives around that time.

[–] aliens_57 19 years ago

the film was made in 1995 like i said on another messsage board as the events on which the film is based upon ended in 1989 so the film could not have been made!!!

Also bout the film being rubbish i do not think it was as it is based upon real events and they got most of it right however there are some rubbish bits in it but that is the same in most films.

[–] skekurc 19 years ago

the dvd box, which i have in front of me at this very moment, says Copyright BBC 1989

FACT!

[–] giarick 19 years ago

You are right mate, It was originally made, (in 1989) for BBC Play for Today.

[–] aliens_57 19 years ago

the film was not made in 1989. It might have been written then by Jim Bannon but not made till later!!!

[–] mart280 19 years ago

The actors look more than ten years older than they are now (check out philip glenister in life on mars) and the motors cortinas granadas and the like are definitaly 80s, and all the way thru watching it you can tell it its the 80s, and I remember seeing it on the bbc about 15 years ago or so.

[–] tim-holden 19 years ago

perhaps they are 2 version one made for the bbc and the later one. The film Scum is like this (I think)

[–] simon-118 18 years ago

No it wasn't, Play for Today finished in 1984.

It was first shown on television on 1st June 1997 as part of the Screen Two strand but had already been seen in cinemas then. It was made by the BBC but given a theatrical release before being screened on television. The same thing happened with several tv dramas of the time, The Hawk being another example.

[–] kevin-218 14 years ago

As I've said in other posts, I bought this video before then. I was still living with my parents when I bought this video and I moved out in 1993.
Also my video (Which I still have) says 1992 on the back.

"Parallax pictures have this film listed as 1995 on their filmography.
Metropolis Filmproduktion also have it listed as 1995.
On the Back of the Video next to Parallax/Metropolis is MCMXCIV (1994)
It can't be any made any earlier than 1994.
First VHS release was on Polygram in 1995."

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slacey-2 19 years ago

In response to the very first comment and in particular

"There was no attempt to recreate the casual style adopted by real football hooligans and the fight scene on the terrace (Valley Parade (I think)) was highly laughable as no clued up hooligan would get involved in a terrace ruck intentionally in this age of CCTV"

In 1995 a bunch of English hooligans disrupted an international friendly match between Ireland and England in Lansdowne Road. There was certainly nothing 'casual' about this as one of these 'football fans' had a small hatchet and not only did they ignore the CCTV but there were TV cameras shooting live pictures into everyones homes. They injured more than 50 people by ripping benches out of the stands and chucking them onto those sitting below.I don't know what the situation was like on a smaller local firm basis but I certainly wouldn't call this movie unrealistic. This match had to be called off and the riot police had to be called - and remember this was 1995!
The details can be found at this link
http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/02/17/ian_0.php

[–] ViolentBob 17 years ago

You do realise what the poster means by 'casual'?

IIRC the casuals first grew out of the skins being easily identified and turned away from games. So they grew their hair and started wearing stuff like Pringle and Fred Perry to try and blend in with the rest of the people going to games. Could be wrong though, it was ages ago and I was young then...