Muriel and her husband Lee are about to begin a bright new life, which is upended by the arrival of Lee's brother. Muriel embarks on a secret life, gambling on racehorses and discovering a l... Read allMuriel and her husband Lee are about to begin a bright new life, which is upended by the arrival of Lee's brother. Muriel embarks on a secret life, gambling on racehorses and discovering a love she never thought possible.Muriel and her husband Lee are about to begin a bright new life, which is upended by the arrival of Lee's brother. Muriel embarks on a secret life, gambling on racehorses and discovering a love she never thought possible.
Coming soon
Releases April 25, 2025
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe first promotional still of the film created the misleading impression that the story might include a romance between Muriel (Daisy Edgar-Jones) and Julius (Jacob Elordi). In fact, there is no love affair between Julius and Muriel in the film: Julius is actually gay and in love with a man.
Featured review
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.
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.
- cinemapersonified
- Mar 21, 2025
- Permalink
- How long will On Swift Horses be?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- На быстрых лошадях
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 57 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content