StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

rhoda-9 One of the two great film critics America produced (the other of course being the very different Pauline Kael) said that to criticise this terrible movie in detail would be like sneering at a sincere, well-meaning family with terrible taste (not just in clothes or books, but everything, including social relations). At that he was too kind, for the grossly aggressive sentimentality and cuteness in the movie were clearly not innocent but were deliberately inflicted on the audience by the filmmakers for commercial purposes.You don't have to have Agee's perceptiveness and honesty, certainly not more than 70 years later, to wince, for instance, at Charles Winninger (unbearably cutesy at the best of times) being constantly called "Grandfeathers" instead of Grandfather. This kind of thing actually undermines (for intelligent people, anyway) the warmth and sentimentality desired. It shows that the movie is not really sweet and unaffected but extremely aggressive: Listen to how cute this is! Fall into line! This movie wants you to say "Aah!" more often than you do at the dentist, and to smile more often than a Miss America contestant. Avoid.

jarrodmcdonald-1 Sunday DINNER FOR A SOLDIER has a well-chosen cast. It brings a simple, yet extraordinary war-time story about love and hope to the screen, courtesy of 20th Century Fox. The movie pairs, for the first time, Anne Baxter with John Hodiak as the young romantic leads. For those that do not know, Baxter would become Mrs. Hodiak a short time later. The rest of the players are seasoned professionals— Charles Winninger as Baxter's father; Anne Revere as a townswoman trying to get Winninger to the altar; and Jane Darwell as another townswoman trying her best to provide accommodations for visiting servicemen. Bobby Driscoll is also seen as one of the youngsters involved in the goings-on. The film has all the typical feel-good elements a family picture made during the war would be expected to have. Take a seat at this cinematic table and help yourself to a serving of sweet corn.

ssthompsonIII I last saw this flick 30-40 years ago,just sent 20th.century-fox a email about it,as it has never been released in any format,also made mention that there were reviews on the IMDb,hopefully it will stir some people up over there,will have to see.funny,a really great little known film from the waning days of the war hold so little interest. i think this film stands well on it's own merit,it is up there with it's a wonderful life but not as sappy. don't get me wrong that is a good movie but me thinks it has been overplayed,glad it is out of the public domain,how many times during the holidays can it be shown??the cast in soldier was out-standing,when thinking about it i thought it was a MGM movie!! kudos to the talent that was involved in making this fine little film,hope it does get released on DVD/blu-ray

MartinHafer Despite a very schmaltzy start, the film did have a certain silly charm. It's about an impossibly nice and incredibly poor family that wants to take what little they have and invite a soldier to dinner as a way of saying thank you. Unfortunately, for so many reasons, it looks like this evening won't come off properly--only in the end does everything magically work out for the best.Anne Baxter did a good job in the lead, as did John Hodiak, though their instant romance at the end of the film completely strained credibility. Charles Winninger was quite the character--I'm not sure if I liked him or not--he did come on awfully strong. As for the kids, the older two were fine but the part for the youngest (Bobby Driscoll) was WAY too annoying and cutesy. Of all the family members, he was by far the most unlikable.There are a lot of cute little movies that I really enjoy, but I'd hardly consider giving them a score of 10. So when I looked on IMDb at the reviews for this film, I was shocked to see two 10s for such an insignificant film--especially since although this film is rather cute, it's also a bit too saccharine and, at times, hard to take. I really wish there were two ratings on each film on IMDb--the quality/aesthetic value of the film and an enjoyability scale.Quality-wise, this is just a run of the mill B-movie from the WWII era--neither bad nor particularly distinguished. The direction and sets are not particularly inspired nor is the script (for the most part). In fact, despite being very watchable, I can't think of any way that this is a stand-out film. Don't believe the high ratings--this is not GONE WITH THE WIND or THE GODFATHER in quality!