Opiniones de usuarios

Unfortunately this sequel lacks the passion of the original. It is the same story with a modern twist. Mr. Thackeray (Sidney Poitier) is faced with near identical trouble-minded students. The setting and characters have changed, though the central students are mirror images of those in the 1967 film. The acting in some instances is bad, in others just average. With the exception of Poitier who, as always, is terrific.

I loved the original. Despite my disappointment in this film, I wouldn't discourage you from seeing it if you enjoyed the first as much as I did. Just temper your expectations. To me, it does not have the same feeling and, accordingly, will not elicit the same emotion. Much of what was so special to me about the 1967 film was that it brought to mind the wonderful teachers I was privileged to have during my schooling. Amazing individuals who were fundamental in my development as a person. This sequel did not bring about the same memories and therefore falls far below it's predecessor.

Just watched this, the TV-movie sequel to To Sir, with Love, on YouTube just now. It begins back in London where Mark Thackeray (Sidney Poitier) retires after 30 years from the high school he taught where we first met him along with his now-former students played once again by Judy Geeson and Lulu. We then see him go to Chicago, my birthtown, where he will now be teaching a new bunch of problem students of various races. Do I get a sense of deja vu here? To be honest, nothing can touch the original in terms of charm and entertainment but Poitier is still a fine actor in his twilight years and the players playing his students this time do have their chance to shine. And this time, we get a little background on what Sir had been doing before that fateful time he first set foot in that English school so that's a plus. Since this was a network production with all that entails concerning standards, there's no realistic-like dialogue which would probably be pretty profane concerning the students but there's still some believability in the way these pupils put themselves out there in talking about themselves. And despite the limited running time with commercials being considered during each fade-in, director Peter Bogdanovich manages to make each scene count. So on that note, To Sir, with Love II is at the least worth a look. And since this is the last day of Black History Month, I probably will take a break from reviewing another film involving African-Americans for a while. But if you like my reviews and are reading this under my username, all I'll say now is watch this space for anything further I may comment on in the future...

Flawed but watchable sequel to the phenomenally successful 1967 movie. Probably the major flaw of this television sequel is it's tenuous links with the original. After cameos from Lulu and Judy Geeson, in almost every respect this could be an entirely different film. With Poitier as Thackeray plunged into a Chicago school, there is a nice mention of Blackboard Jungle by one of the teachers, but after that everything we've previously come to expect from a Sidney Poitier film is left at the door. While this movie does contain the sentimentality of the original, its short length means we never really get to know the pupils and so this feels forced. Also, unlike the original, there is no sense of redemption or development for the pupils, who act pretty much the same at the climax as they did at the start of the film. Where it veers far out of the expected range is in its depiction of street violence, which does give a genuine racial tone to the proceedings, and seems more natural than in some previous offerings. The racial dynamic between Poitier as the England-acclimatised teacher and Travanti as the student who leads a gang to survive is strong. However, the rigid morality of Thackeray this time around lends Sidney a limited set of parameters in which to reenact his role.

I saw and loved the original movie To Sir With Love. Sidney Poiter is one of my favorite actors. I really enjoy classics. After watching the original movie for the umpteenth time I was beginning to wonder what ever happened to S.Poiter. Wondering if they ever made a second or would ever make one... then just days after think that, I saw an advertisment for To Sir With Love 2. You can imagine how overjoyed I was. I could hardly wait to see this movie to see if it could be as good as the first. I was very much pleased with it. If you enjoyed the first you will enjoy the 2nd. I am also happy to say that I have passed on, to my very young daughter, my love for the classic movie. As a matter of fact she is at this very moment watching the original To Sir With Love and not for the first time I might add. Sidney Poiter is a very handsome man and a very good actor and everything and I mean everything he has done has been wonderful. And I might add that he looked as young in the 2nd movie as he did in the first. I would love to know where he found the fountain of youth.... but I am sure that is a secret only God knows.

After almost 30 years, the sequel of "To Sir, with Love" came out. I enjoyed the first movie, so I thought the second film would bring the same emotions. I was wrong.

I feel like they tried to expose and solve to many social problems (problems that Thackeray's students faced) but failed. It was something like: look this is the tragical problem this one has, the issue is miraculously solved, everyone is happy. In addition, the other part of the story that exploits Thackeray's life is very stiff, without many explanations and, somehow, forced. I feel like they could have done way better than this.

However, on the other bright side, it was touching to see how students change for the better thanks to their teacher (something that we saw in the first movie as well).

Proof that Sidney Poitier does not always have the Midas touch. You knew all along that Mark Thackery was going to succeed, so no surprises there, and no real satisfaction either. But the BIG TURN-OFF was the sheer idealism of the movie. The teens Thackery is trying to convert just aren't gritty and dirty enough. The moment when Thackery returned from his short retrenchment and the class began chanting 'Thackery' in unison epitomised that for me. It was a moment was total unrealism. This movie just did not work, despite good intentions I'm sure. 4 out of 10 because I'm not feeling generous.

After 30 years at his old school in England, Mark Thackary leaves on mandatory retirement, and gets a job teaching in Chicago. Lulu and Judy Geeson are back reprising their roles from the original for the beginning send-off. The Chicago coming-of-age scenes are mostly predictable, but Poitier is as smooth as ever, and the two main brothers do a marvelous job. The original was a great movie. This sequel is an enjoyable time-passer. Daniel J. Travanti does a good job as the feckless principal.

I saw To Sir, With Love 1 when I was young, and it stayed with me. I always wanted a teacher like Mark Thackery, but I was never lucky enough to encounter one. I had no ideal that they had made the second one until one day, I was lucky enough to catch it on Starz! Three people at my house sat mesmerized by Sidney Poitier as Mark Thackery's second chance after being retired from English schools to help kids that needed help and had been discarded from life. I found it to be very believable, and so did my friends. We would all recommend this movie. If you get a chance to see it, watch it. It's definitely worth your time.

I watched this movie expecting to revive the feeling I got (and still get,,,though diminished) from To Sir With Love (1967), which is my favorite film. Sadly, I was disappointed. The connection between the two films is tenuous. The students' characters are not sufficiently developed for me to feel anything for them. Plus, there doesn't seem to be any real change in them by the end. It all seems quite unrealistic. Also, at some points I felt as if I was watching an "ABC After School Special"

Someone who knows how much I adore Poitier's no nonsense demeaner and noble characterizations taped this film for me one evening when I informally voted that it would not be worth my while to make a b line home to see it. Though I appreciated the favor, the tape sat on my shelf for many a year. All I recalled about the production were the brief previews that served as ample warning that the film would aire. Truthfully, I was kind of Poitiered out. Nobody went around public speaking talking about his book and showing clips of his works as much as I did. I particularly enjoyed the Bill Cosby pairings of comedies, the "In the Heat of the Night" and "Shoot to Kill" cop flicks and the career founding race films that literally and figuratively were black and white. The first "To Sir with Love" was passable but finding difficulty joining the lofty ranks of the aforementioned 3 category favorites. With "Fame" and "Good Will Hunting" among my favorite school theme films and "With Honors" and "Breakfast Club" doing admireable jobs at rounding out that theme category, I found it hard to believe there was a place for a partially commited to Poitier project to have any impact. For all intents and purposes, I wrote this project off and kind of kept my distance from it the same way a boxing fan might refuse to go see a very old Ali take on Berbick. Almost a decade after first recorded I watched this "To Sir with Love 2" and was surprised to find that it has it own healthy niche'. The first few minutes shows the 80 year-old thesbian playing a teacher moving about the city with a theme song that sounds both dated and amateurish, however this cheesiness is only misleading and does not hint of the good stuff that follows if you stick with it. There are plenty of good teaching techniques peppered with periodic morale lessons. Blunted violence and self censored language may come across as humorous or unrealistic, however it does not take away from the overall message and in the end plays a major part in the movie's charm. For the umpteenth time, another score for Poitier, even though I thought he was done.

I love To Sir With Love, and did not know this sequel existed. What a sad mess this little movie is, nothing at all like the first one. I felt no passion, no real emotions from the cast, just a call in to get a pay check. You may or may not like the 1st one if you haven't seen it before, but do not judge it by this one. It might be the times, I grew up in the 50-60s and the 1st movie spoke to me, the school systems not teaching the poor students, students of color being treated less than human, etc., but by the time this second movie came along, it just seems tired, old, and as I said before, called in. Most the time a sequel should not be done, they are rarely any good.

Essentially, this is just a remake of the original. The location switched form London to Chicago, but the main storyline is just the same.

It suffered in the same way as the original whereby the cast of students was too old for the parts they played: Christian Payton (31), Dana Eskelson (31), Bernadette Speakes (29).

The drugs, knives, guns, gangs, pimping and prostitution was dealt with in an almost dismissive way, as though it was normal.

The best part of the film was at the start, in London when Judy Geeson and Lulu reprised their roles in the original. After that it was all down hill.

How the title song was not a hit in the UK I will never know.

It was the B side to "Let's Pretend" but I remember it getting considerable air-time on pirate radio in 1967.

It reached No 1 in the USA.

I loved the original "To Sir With Love" movie when it came out in the sixties. As Sidney Poitier is one of my favorite actors, I definitely wanted to watch this sequel when I found out yesterday that it existed. I did not expect this one to be as good as the first. However, I was pleasantly surprised for several reasons. First, Poitier kept his charm, charisma and his signature stare despite the passage of nearly 30 years. In my opinion, he is still one of the greatest actors of all time. Second, the director and producer kept the movie completely free from any subliminal political messages. It is an unfortunate fact of life that many Hollywood directors and producers cannot resist the temptation of injecting their biases into every movie they make (I don't need to specify which party is always blamed, but it starts with an R). Third, the main message of the movie was hopeful and uplifting. Overall, the movie was definitely better than I expected.

The sequel to the wildly popular To Sir, with Love is perhaps the worst, most disappointing sequel ever created. To be fair, I haven't seen every sequel in the world, so there might be a worse one out there. But, given all that happened in the 1967 film, I'm sure any of you would have been able to come up with a better story than Philip Rosenberg did. It's so terrible, I'm surprised Sidney Poitier even agreed to be in it.

While it was publicized everywhere that Lulu and Judy Gleeson reprised their roles in this film, they're only in the first five minutes of the movie. If only the movie ended then. While audiences everywhere were consumed with the romantic promises in the first one, Sidney is finally given a love interest in To Sir, with Love II. It's so terribly written, I almost turned the film off. For love of Sidney, I kept watching. Feel free to take my word for it and save yourself ninety minutes. There's absolutely no aspect that makes it worth watching, and the acting isn't even any good.

I really liked the movie i think it had a lot of meaning to it the kids would get a lot out of it if they would only watch it. I watch it every chance i get along with the movie of the Temptations. they both were really good i cried in both of them.

Academy Award winner Sidney Poitier reprises his role of Mark Thackeray. After retiring from thirty years of teaching in London, he returns to Chicago only to come out of retirement to take on the new challenge of teaching another classroom of misfits. This sequel does not pack the punch of the original, but is interesting if not predictable. Judy Geeson and Lulu reprise their original roles to send off their favorite teacher to America. Also in the cast are:Daniel J. Travanti, John Beasley, Dana Eskelson and Christian Payton. Kudos to famed director Peter Bogdanovich.

I thought it would be inferior to the first, as usually happens with sequences, but it was so beautiful when the first, and the unforgettable theme was present ... too beautiful ... (2012) As cute as the first, to the sound of the classic and unforgettable Lulu "To Sir With Love"...

In my opinion it is virtually impossible to shoot a film as unforgettable as "To Sir with Love". We never get tired of watching it over and over again. Every time we watch it, it seems to be the first time. I think there is a lot of things that make this film unique. First of all, it happened in a time so different from the one we're living today. Also the film delivers a kind of message that had already been forgotten, a message of respect and love for our teachers. I am a teacher myself and know what I'm talking about. The cast is great and so is the song that will endure forever on our minds and hearts, and Sidney had an outstanding role.

The original To Sir With Love ranks as one of the best movies I have ever seen. I originally saw it on the big screen in a theater when I was 12 years old and I have watched it many times since then on disc and on TV.

It's like an old friend - Poitier was wonderful and so were the teens - Lulu, Judy Geeson, Christian Roberts, etc.

I was really looking forward to this sequel when it first aired on TV, but I was extremely disappointed. Poitier was very good as usual, but the script was just boring.

Lulu and Judy Geeson from the original appear briefly - all before the opening credits - and then they are gone. What a waste.

The plot line of this sequel just meanders on and you come away from the film feeling nothing really. The original was rewarding for the viewer because there was so much emotion and feeling in the tale of this black teacher and his rowdy students who came to respect him and, ultimately, were "tamed" by him into adulthood. You really cared about Mr. Thackery and his students.

Here, the students are not sympathetic and are rather uninteresting.

Shockingly, this sequel was directed by Peter Bogdanovich who had a fine reputation as a result of some excellent feature films that he directed, but this just seemed like a half-hearted attempt at telling what could have been an interesting look at what happened to Mr. Thackery.

Bottom line : a sadly missed opportunity for the fans of the original "To Sir With Love," Sidney Poitier, and Lulu.

Normally, a film sequel occurs shortly after the original movie is released...perhaps a year or a few years later. However, in the case of "To Sir, with Love II", it's about three decades later! Because the delay was so long, it makes you wonder if this TV movie can capture the spirit of the original. To make this more likely, there are brief cameos by a couple of the 'kids' from the original movie...Judy Geeson and Lulu.

Mark Thackery (Sidney Poitier) is retiring after a long and successful career teaching in England. Now he's ready for a new challenge and accepts a job working in a tough urban school in Chicago. But when he arrives, he asks that he not be given the Honors History class to teach but the one for the 'hopeless' kids as he likes the challenge...which we saw in the original picture. Is he up for the challenge or will his students eat him alive?

"To Sir, with Love II" is a very enjoyable film. It's not entirely realistic, as I've taught some tough kids myself and the 'tough kids' in the film seemed amazingly normal and not the dangerous, psychotic sorts! But even if much of the film (particularly the last ten minutes) isn't altogether realistic, it is enjoyable and well acted....and is well worth seeing.

To Sir With Love 2 and the first one I believe is the best movie that was made. It shows that kids and Adults can change and that, if everyone helps each other it will truly be a better place to live. I just wish the movie would come on again and we could find it on video. To the Director and Producer I lift my hat off to you. YOU DONE A GREAT JOB!!!

Why have I not heard of this movie.

To Sir, with Love is the ONLY movie that I have watched more than twice. I must see this movie, but I do not expect it to be as good as the first.