SanFernandoCurt This thing has been re-filmed on television so many times, it's clearly a sentimental bonbon for Hollywood's ethnic powerhouses. 'Why' isn't mysterious. Its plodding plot line confirms what I bet most African Americans suspect is their propositional status with Jews: We're all in this together as long as you dusky folk know your place. Finally, we have PC-certified condescension. Breakthrough.It's all about the 'relationship' between Miss Daisy of the title and her black chauffeur Holk - except its key points generally are tipped by incursions of that ol' debbil racism and what modern-day Northern Jews determine is virulent anti-Semitism that's always infested the South like a boll weevil in a cotton ball. That there's only subjective 'evidence' of this is minor detail. In one turning point, Daisy and Hoke find common ground after her synagogue is bombed; that actually happened mid-1950s, but as reaction to its role in Atlanta civil rights protests, not so much hatred of Hebrews. Obviously, tales of victimhood and suffering - fabricated though they are - are much more in sync with today's political ambiance than recalling Jewish role in the Atlantic slave trade, or that the Confederacy's Secretary of State blew the shofar.There's an amusing moment in which their limo is pulled over by two state troopers with oddly subtle approach to their Bull Connor obligation in the movie. They ID Miss Daisy as Jewish but... how? Is there a Mogen David on her license plate? Appearance? I look more Jewish than Jessica Tandy.You owe yourself a pass on this one.

Rob Starzec A nomination (and a lot of the time the win) for the Oscar for best picture is often bestowed on a film which touches on the subject of prejudice and overcoming it somehow, or at least the hope for surpassing prejudice. The Academy has given the award to films that touch on racial prejudice, such as this film and the disappointing web-life film Crash (which won against a much more brilliant film, Brokeback Mountain, which touches on prejudice of sexual orientation) most likely because it is a "safe pick." This film is one of those "safe picks" which does not do much visually, but manages to depict the great heartwarming story of the play on which it is based.Driving Miss Daisy may not be the most exciting film, but it has a story that is easy to follow as well as a very short duration regarding the typical feature film, keeping anybody engaged as long as the audience cares about characters and their growth within stories. Daisy is depicted as a prejudiced person in denial early in the film, and it is actually quite humorous how she interacts with Hoke (Morgan Freeman) before he becomes her driver. She is a selfish elderly woman who doesn't realize what she is saying at times, and stubborn as a mule, not taking Hoke's help (paid for by her son, played by Dan Aykroyd) until 6 days pass.As Hoke and Daisy spend time with each other they come to learn from each other with great benefit. When it is revealed that Hoke can't read, instead of being uptight with him about it Daisy explains it in a clever way only a previous school teacher like her can do it. Just a few minutes later, a lot of time has passed and it is revealed she is now giving him a book to help him write, so Hoke is overcoming some pretty important struggles with Daisy's help.Hoke warms up to Daisy through the second act of the film, but it takes Aykroyd's character suggesting she let Hoke come to a meeting about Martin Luther King Jr. to get her to understand Hoke's feelings. Daisy gets into a mini-quarrel with Hoke about this, and you can see it in her eyes she regrets that she didn't invite him to such an important event in the eyes of an African American like Hoke. Towards the finale of the film, it is heartbreaking to hear Daisy admit that Hoke is her best friend while she is suffering from what appears to be dementia, and though Hoke says she is only saying that, she assures him it is true.Time goes by quickly in this movie, and in order to keep up with the time you have to pay attention to the years of the various cars, the graying of Dan Aykroyd's hair, or the change in abilities of Hoke and/or Daisy. This is much more interesting than the annoying titles often used in films to remind people that time has passed - this way it does not make the audience feel like a group of idiots. The only thing I found visually interesting about the film is a scene between Daisy and her son in which mirrors are employed to show what is happening in the room for a lengthy take, and the rest of the cinematography in the movie makes it feel simple, with more focus on the characters than the technique as in a play.Still a great story with two great leads.

gavin6942 An old Jewish woman (Jessica Tandy) and her African-American chauffeur (Morgan Freeman) in the American South have a relationship that grows and improves over the years.This movie is pretty well known and does not really require a full review. But, suffice to say, it has earned the praise given to it. Some may paint it as a picture of race relations, or even religious relations (there are Jews celebrating Christmas and a synagogue bombing). But it is really a tale of friendship and the race or religion aspects are very minor.Most interesting is the casting of Dan Aykroyd. He could easily have been dismissed as a bad idea, his very presence making this more of a comedy than it was intended to be. But by no means is this the case. In fact, compared to Miss Daisy, his character could even be considered the one "playing it straight".

Sergeant_Tibbs Driving Miss Daisy lives foremost in Academy Award history infamy more than anything else, not necessarily because it beat anything particularly superior like the next year's Dances With Wolves, but because even for them it's just not up to their standards. Based on a play, and it should've stayed on the stage despite the freedom film gives to driving, it's really stale and bland. Quite backwards and overly simplistic especially among a field of more progressive films of its time. The quirky 'odd couple' relationship between an old lady and black man provides clichéd conflict and saccharine drama, touching on light racial themes as delicately as possible as to not disturb anyone. It has mildly amusing moments, nothing original in the slightest, just flukes where the charm clicks, though it ruins it with something eye rolling inducing shortly afterwards.It actually wouldn't be quite so bad if the ensemble wasn't so unbearable. I've never found Morgan Freeman this intolerable, from top to bottom he comes off as false and irritating. The only moments he's decent are the somber reflective ones, this tone he later took throughout the better part of his career, but otherwise it falls flat. Jessica Tandy is no help to him either being merely okay and Dan Akroyd always looks and feels out of place, one take away from anything natural. It has a clunky contrived rhythm about it that doesn't make anything believable. It's just a sentimental lifetime movie with no real justification of why we have to spend it with these insufferable characters. There's a reason Bruce Beresford wasn't nominated for Director or done anything worthwhile since, he has no vision, if only they realized it for the Picture lineup too. I'm just glad to have gotten it out of the way.5/10