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.

Be prepared for a lot of butts...both human and cigarettes.

Here's my 2nd "Mystery Movie" (or as AMC calls it, "Screen Unseen.") All I knew was the Rating (R) and length. My guess was "Sinners." Wrong. My friend's guess, and he's almost ALWAYS right, was "The Accountant 2." Also, wrong. In fact, neither of us could be FURTHER from what this movie was.

And I bet this was a very, very big surprise to the almost-packed audience. I had to not-so-secretly smile to all the heterosexuals in the audience who would've never paid to see a LGBTQ+ period piece melodrama...in their lives.

As stated, this movie takes place in the 1950s and explores an unconventional love triangle. Two brothers, two Korean War veterans couldn't be further apart, but still love each other. In-between is one of the brother's wife. All three have dreams...and two of which were really hard to come by with 1950s homophobia.

I liked the movie, there's really nothing wrong here. I like that there were two heartbreaking leads vs. The typical one. The acting was fine and the stakes were real. Was it anywhere close to the similar Brokeback Mountain?

Absolutely not. Not even in the same league. But, it's a good update to how homosexuals struggled in the 1950s. I can't even imagine what it was like then. I will forever salute the brave men, women and everyone who stood up to homophobia to make it easier - no, 1000x easier for future generations.

I don't suspect so, but it would be interesting to see if this gets any award buzz next Awards season. Maybe I'll have to revisit this and see something different. For right now: I did like it, I didn't love it and I didn't regret seeing it.

***

Final Thoughts: I do love to go into a movie cold. Not knowing much about it, other than the title, usually at least one of the leads, maybe genre/subgenre and a recommendation. This is by far, the coldest I've ever experienced. I never once heard of this movie, the background or absolutely anything. In fact, I was worried I wouldn't remember the title since I never heard of this before to write this review. Well, I finally got my #1 wish...to be completely frozen over.

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.

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.

Muriel (Daisy Edgar Jones) and her husband Lee (Will Poulter) are about to begin a bright new life, which is upended by the arrival of Lee's brother Julius (Jacob Elordi). Muriel embarks on a secret life, gambling on racehorses and discovering a love she never thought possible.

I think the film is trying to say that none of us know what we want, until we lose what we don't want, and find what we do. But I could be wrong because this tedious film doesn't actually seem to have a point.

It's nicely filmed, but so slow I was getting quite frustrated at things not happening, and when they did they made no sense. I honestly think it is nothing more than a titillating film with men on men sex, women on women sex and plenty of boobs, camel toe and men in white underpants.

There's no real flow at all and no real storyline; it's empty and boring. Will Poulter is great but apart from him there's not much decent acting going on. It was laborious to get through to the end so I give it a 4 and that's being incredibly generous.