Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

HotToastyRag Twelve years earlier, Sidney Poitier played one of a classroom full of rowdy kids in a poor school taught by do-good-er Glenn Ford in Blackboard Jungle. In 1967, Sidney grew up and played the role of the noble teacher in To Sir, with Love. Well, to be honest, it's not exactly a remake of the 1955 film, but the premises are so similar, and the casting is pretty ironic. This marked one of Sidney's most iconic films and roles, partially because it was fun to see him in the reverse role, and partially because of the title song that skyrocketed to the top of the charts.One major difference between the two films is the setting; To Sir, with Love takes place in England. Sidney deals with the rough students with their Cockney accents, but there's more social problems for him to deal with than violence, as was the case in Blackboard Jungle. There's a bit of a student-teacher romance for him to juggle, as well as a flirtatious rapport with a colleague, and audiences get to watch him dance the "in" dance moves of the 1960s. Besides the fun stuff, there are lots of great scenes about maturity and teaching life lessons as well as academics. It's a must-see for Sidney Poitier fans, as well as those who like classroom dramas.

bbr00ks I finally watched this "Classic" earlier this week. I made it all the way through which is saying something given my short attention span. Although it was defiantly enjoyable, (certainly compared to some other classics) I found parts quite parochial. For example, why does Sir freak when he finds burning tampons - was knowledge of menses and it's accessories not well known? Sir resorts to calling his girls behavior slutty on several occasions, and Sir tells his students no one wants a girl who has been used or something like that. Sir leads by example - which is good but somehow his students behavior does not seem quite so menacing compared with today or even the 80s (think of the Students behavior in "The Substitute"). Also it seems quite unrealistic that the hardest case to win over (Denham) is suddenly converted by letting him beat up on Sir. Well the 60s music, dress, slang, dancing was all very interesting to see and the acting was mostly quite good.

grantss Great movie. Interesting, thought-provoking and emotional plot. A bit idealistic though. Also has some dead end sub-plots. Ending is a bit abrupt and could have done with some polishing. Still the original teacher-gets- through-to-some-unteachable-kids movie though.Superb performance by Sidney Poitier in the lead role. Good support from a cast of mostly unknowns. The theme song (by Lulu, who also stars in the movie) is excellent too. (The cover version, live, by 10,000 Maniacs and Michael Stipe is even better)

Gideon24 1967 was a very good year for Sidney Poitier. In addition to appearing in that year's Oscar winning Best Picture, In the Heat of the Night and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, he created one of his most endearing characters, making To Sir, With Love, one of the best movies ever made about high school students changed by the dedication of one teacher.Based on the book by ER Braithwaite, Poitier plays Mark Thackeray, a recent engineering school graduate unable to get a job in that field, who accepts a job teaching at a school in the slums of London's east end, teaching high school age students and the lengths to which he goes to reach these kids.Not only does Thackeray have to deal with the kids' bigotry, but realizes that normal teaching methods are not going to work as most of the kids are barely literate and have no social skills whatsoever and it is when Thackeray decides to throw away the textbooks and decides to teach the kids the basics of being civilized human beings, he finally starts making a connection.Poitier is magnificent here, creating a character of quiet dignity and unassuming intelligence with whom respect is immediately demanded, from the viewer as well as the rest of the characters in the movie. Poitier is one of those actors, like Meryl Streep, who never has to resort to scenery chewing in order to command the screen. If memory serves, there is only one scene where Thackeray actually raises his voice. This is a performance that, like a lot of Streep's work, should be studied by acting students...Poitier beautifully internalizes Thackeray's initial confusion on how to reach these students and the joy it brings him when it begins to happen.Christian Roberts and Judy Geeson offer effective support as Thackeray's biggest problem student and another student who develops a crush on him, but this is Poitier's show all the way and his performance is the film's number one appeal. Mention should also be made of the smash hit single of the title tune the film produced, performed by Lulu, who also appears in the film as student Barbara Peg.