Do you ever feel like a film gave up? Like just gave up trying to make a point or tell a story and just devolve? This one did. On Swift Horses started out with a plot, a POV, and a story to tell, but somewhere around the hour mark decided: “Screw it. Let’s show some sex. Gay sex. Lesbian sex. Hetero sex. Let’s just do that instead.”
Don’t get me wrong – if your film has nothing to say, this seems like a pretty good route to go. I wish more pointless films went this route, but I can’t say any of this necessarily speaks well of On Swift Horses, a film in which the horses stalled and then swiftly got put out to stud. Perhaps the producers felt they could breed a champion picture alternative to this one.
The “fun” starts when Julius (Jacob Elordi) returns from the Korean War and finds the Kansas (farm)house where his brother Lee (Will Poulter) and Lee’s fiancé Muriel (Daisy Edgar-Jones) are shackin’ up. Julius is sunbathing shirtless in freezing weather when introduced to Muriel. She is immediately a fan, and I thought at this moment I saw the whole movie mapped out: Julius and Lee fight over Muriel and Julius eventually wins because … c’mon. Jacob Elordi v. Will Poulter?!
The movie did not go in this direction, thankfully. I’m always a fan of films that keep you guessing, but … what direction did it go in? None of it is clear. Muriel and Lee abandon the Kansas house that Muriel owns move to San Diego where Muriel gets a job … waiting tables, which is so much better than home ownership. The best part of her job is overhearing hot tips at the racetrack. Ok, that’s one way to cheat the system, I guess. It’s hardly reliable and you’re waiting tables, but, hey, ill-gotten gains are ill-gotten gains, amIright? Then Muriel decides she’s a lesbian.
Meanwhile, Julius is cark shark. He knows how to cheat and gets caught once by a man who seduces him, sorta. While trying to do things the wrong way, Julius gives up on that and gets a job as a casino overseer. He knows exactly how people cheat; why not help out the “good” guys? Mostly this set-up exists to show us that Julius is gay, never had romantic feelings for Muriel, and instead likes to play his own ponies, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyado.
And then there’s sex. A lot of sex. A little straight sex. A lot of gay sex. Nothing terribly 
explicit, but some pretty steamy stuff. And it’s pretty clear at this point in the film that On Swift Horses either lost its way or wanted to be a sex film the whole time and just took a while to get around to it. It doesn’t really matter. The characters aren’t noteworthy and neither are their dilemmas. We kinda just want to see them have sex with each other. So … bravo, maybe?
On Swift Horses isn’t much of a film and I’m curious as to what the vision was for this thing. Was intended to comment on the uptight nature of 1950s norms and taboos … or did you just want to see pretty people in hopeless outmoded underwear. I’m thinkin’ the latter.
Two 1950s brothers, Juilus and Lee
Had a post-war plans plain to see
They’s collect their pensions
And then -hey-pay attention!
Have sex and sex and sex until 1963
Rated R, 119 Minutes
Director: Daniel Minahan
Writer: Bryce Kass, Shannon Pufahl
Genre: All kinds o’ sex
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: The horny
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: People who want a story
