On Swift Horses

I am a big fan of Edgar-Jones and desperately wanted to love this film. I saw the film at SXSW in the beautiful Paramount theater with Edgar-Jones appearing on stage with several of the other actors. She is the producer of the film.

I found the story very disjointed and the overall flow of the film fighting against itself. Yes it is super glossy with beautiful actors across the entire cast so great eye candy but for myself uninspiring acting.

So what is the point of the story here? Is it we keep secrets or one needs to follow their own path? Honestly the end of the film was a complete let down and was thinking riding horse into the sunset was a final joke.

Rating - 5.4: Overall, a lackluster, Oscar-bait period drama that is about characters exploring their sexuality in a time when it's taboo, but the movie does so in a surface-level way that provides no nuance to the issue and gives you no material to really care about these characters.

Direction - Pretty Bad: The direction on a macroscale feels very similar to other period dramas like this; the direction on a microscale is pretty lackluster because the actors are giving emotion to material that has no substance or nuance; the storytelling is not good because the movie shallowly discusses the topic and doesn't really provide stakes that engage you

Story - Bad to Pretty Bad: The concept is very surface-level and provides no nuance to these characters exploring their sexuality; the horse-racing storyline is poorly incorporated into the plot; the plot structure follows two parallel stories that intersect at points in the story; the two storylines do not really do a good job exploring the relationships of the characters; character writing is bad because it presents these characters exploring their sexuality in such a surface-level way that provides no nuance to why this was taboo in the 1950s, especially for Edgar-Jones' character

Screenplay - Bad to Pretty Bad: The dialogue provides no substance as it is bland and boring; the symbolism is incredibly surface level and provides no nuance to these characters exploring their sexuality, especially Edgar-Jones' character; the foreshadowing is present

Acting - Pretty Bad: Daisy Edgar-Jones - Pretty Bad (Gives a very surface-level performance; she doesn't really explore the character's sexuality at all and does not really have chemistry with any other characters; In a role that really depends on having good chemistry), Jacob Elordi - Decent (Gives a very surface-level performance; does an alright job exploring the character's sexuality, but it feels very forced and presents no nuance to the relationship's taboo; has alright chemistry with Calva, but very forced chemistry with Edgar-Jones), Will Poulter - Decent (Just a very standard, 1950s husband being cheated on, character; he does not really have chemistry with anyone), Diego Calva - Bad (Feels very forced and does not provide nuance to the character; it has very surface-level chemistry with Elordi), Sasha Calle - Decent to Pretty Good (Probably the best performance for the movie, which isn't saying a lot, because her character is somewhat believable and you can tell the struggle she's going through; she tries to build chemistry with Edgar-Jones, but it isn't reciprocated on the same level), Rest of the cast - Pretty Bad (Just a bunch of formulaic period drama performances)

Score - Decent: Helps set the tone

Cinematography - Pretty Good: The movie is well-shot and feels polished

Editing - Pretty Good: Feels polished and well-edited

Sound - Pretty Good

Visual Effects - Pretty Bad: The fact that they had to CGI the horses shows what is wrong with Hollywood right now

Pacing - Pacing is very slow because it doesn't feel like anything is happening; I would have liked to have seen them add more time to explore these parallel storylines and provide more depth, or just cut one of the storylines altogether

Climax - Climax is decent for how heartwarming it is

Tone - Tone feels like a typical period drama that's Oscar-bait;

Final Notes - Saw the U. S. premiere at SXSW.

Ever heard the phrase "life's not meant to be managed, it's meant to be lived". I guess this movie shows it's a little bit more complicated sometimes, for some. It's a dance between managing and living. On the one hand everyone's trying to manage what others know about them and on the other hand taking great risks. Living on the edge. One character says that there's always the risk of losing it all. Nevertheless, some brave souls are willing to risk it all. For a chance at love, freedom, pleasure, connection, truth. A chance to be honestly seen and loved.

Is this a great movie? That depends. There are great things about it for sure. The actors for one. The stories told. Fascinating stories of hidden lives, and of secrets. Now exposed to us. Beautiful cinematography! Some shots literally made me want to freeze the frame, take it all in, and then after a long pause, push play.

On Swift Horses is a slow-burning, atmospheric drama about love, secrets, and self-discovery. The film's strength lies in its strong performances and beautiful cinematography, which capture the quiet intensity of the characters' emotions. While the pacing is deliberate and may feel too slow for some, the emotional depth and subtle storytelling make it worthwhile. It's a thoughtful film that lingers after the credits, exploring themes of longing and identity with sensitivity.

Synopsis: Muriel and her husband Lee are beginning a bright new life in California when he returns from the Korean War. But their newfound stability is upended by the arrival of Lee's charismatic brother, Julius, a wayward gambler with a secret past. A dangerous love triangle quickly forms. When Julius takes off in search of the young card cheat he's fallen for, Muriel's longing for something more propels her into a secret life of her own, gambling on racehorses and exploring a love she never dreamed possible.

On Swift Horses is a film about social control; how dominant collective ideology puts us in boxes and forces us to perform the status quo. As such, it's going to alienate a less discerning audience who, to be fair, have never questioned anything within their social lexicon.

Whilst the other user reviews on here currently denote mainly the dangers in trying to introduce a film with a bit of meaning to the kind of people who watch maybe 10 movies per year (and, in particular years, 6 of those movies are Top Gun: Maverick) at a Cineplex promo screening best suited for crap starring Jason Statham, I can assure you that it is a very intentional and very thoughtful film.

It's about the balance between being true to oneself and appeasing those around you out of fear of isolation and rejection; the gradual evaluation and awareness of such in one's own life and the amount of sacrifice that assimilating to your socio-economic peer group can entail.

The plot of the film is already described in the synopsis and to say much more than that may inadvertently spoil it.

Admittedly, the pacing is deliberate and the tone sombre, which, again, will alienate those who stare at Instagram reels all day. But for those who appreciate film whose form matches its content and that doesn't patronize its audience, they will find it rewarding.

This is a film about nuance; about reading non-verbal cues; and, as the title suggests, about the balance between personal freedom and being a controlled rider of your own journey.

We all have to decide if we want to race and enjoy it or take cautious steps without risk.