;

On Swift Horses

2024

Drama / Romance

18
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 50% · 108 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 72% · 50 ratings
IMDb Rating 6.0/10 10 2306 2.3K

casino based on novel or book gambling lesbian relationship 1950s gay romance

Plot summary

In the 1950s, a seemingly sensible newlywed and her wayward brother-in-law undertake parallel journeys of risk, romance, and self-discovery.

Director

Daniel Minahan Photo
Daniel Minahan

Top cast

Jacob Elordi Photo
Jacob Elordi as Julius
Sasha Calle Photo
Sasha Calle as Sandra
Will Poulter Photo
Will Poulter as Lee
Daisy Edgar-Jones Photo
Daisy Edgar-Jones as Muriel
720p.WEB 1080p.WEB 1080p.WEB.x265 2160p.WEB.x265
1.07 GB
1280*536
English 2.0
NR
Subtitles us  fr  
23.976 fps
1 hr 59 min
Seeds 92
2.2 GB
1920*804
English 5.1
NR
Subtitles us  fr  
23.976 fps
1 hr 59 min
Seeds 100+
1.99 GB
1920*804
English 5.1
NR
Subtitles us  fr  
23.976 fps
1 hr 59 min
Seeds 47
5.32 GB
3836*1606
English 5.1
NR
Subtitles us  fr  
23.976 fps
1 hr 59 min
Seeds 55

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by cinemapersonified 5 / 10

Pretty Bad Movie

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 youStory - 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' characterScreenplay - 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 presentActing - 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 toneCinematography - Pretty Good: The movie is well-shot and feels polishedEditing - Pretty Good: Feels polished and well-editedSound - Pretty GoodVisual Effects - Pretty Bad: The fact that they had to CGI the horses shows what is wrong with Hollywood right nowPacing - 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 altogetherClimax - Climax is decent for how heartwarming it isTone - Tone feels like a typical period drama that's Oscar-bait;Final Notes - Saw the U. S. premiere at SXSW.
Reviewed by ThatMovieGuyReviews 5 / 10

Screen Unseen - Confusing

Reviewed by ktconlon-18146 5 / 10

Wanted badly to like this film

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.
Read more IMDb reviews

15 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment