pyrocitor Never mind Gus Van Sant's ill-advised 1998 remake: here is our ideal 21st century adaptation of Psycho. Instead of custodianship, our contemporary Norman Bates directs his spiteful and playfully sulky jabs to Mother through a video blog while eagerly preparing for guests, yet is shown to be just as fraying in sanity. But there's nothing mad about Nightingale, which ticks along with absorbing insistence, unspooling its familiar narrative of obsession and yearning with deftness and ease.Any single actor show is always a commitment, but director Elliot Lester keeps the proceedings lively and engaging, with cameras mesmerizingly gliding through every last inch of Peter Snowden's house, while the disjuncture between long, still takes and rapid cutting empathetically mirror his manic shifts in energy, even blurring the frame imperceptibly in solidarity with his drunkenness. Writer Frederick Mensch employs every conceit in the book to stave off stagnation (including a choice HBO gag the film's original viewership must have relished). He motivates Snowden's monologuing and teasing crucial exposition through key props and devices, including his mother's makeup mirror, phone conversations, prayer, and his vlogging interludes, each teasing out distinct strands of personality coalescing into a disturbed but wholly realized individual. Meanwhile, Mark D. Todd's score lends an uneasy serenity to the surroundings, as the film creeps along with a thinly veiled false sense of security. Story-wise, which enraptures its unravelling protagonist with The Glass Menagerie's anticipation of a gentleman caller of sorts, there are few surprises, but the inevitability with which events transpire is bittersweet in itself. But beyond this cursory human experience, which is affecting enough, there's not much by way of thematic subtext. Childhood trauma and military service are teased, but left as largely self-evident, while it's unclear if the collusion in the character names "Edward" and "Snowden" is meant to imply any sort of commentary (the dichotomy between his isolated loneliness and his consistent filming and publicizing his stream-of-consciousness monologues?), but it's either clumsily implemented or vaguely distractingly gimmicky. As such, the film is worthwhile primarily as a showcase of its lead, the magnificent David Oyelowo. Nearly unrecognizable from his star-making turn as MLK in Selma, Oyelowo, carrying virtually every frame of the film, is comparably superbly magnetic here. Sashaying through mood swings (and hair styles) encompassing outrageously silly to pouty to vitriolic and destructive, Oyelowo masterfully conjures energy through his constant tension between frenzied movement and stillness, all the while carrying a wealth of achingly sympathetic unspoken backstory in his increasingly bloodshot eyes. It's a spectacular turn, and if, granted, he's the predominant draw and purpose Nightingale, he alone is easily well worth the experience.-7.5/10

jimel98 First off, without a doubt, the star and really, ONLY actor, David Oyelowo is terrific. He carries this film. Well, I guess he's HAVE to being he's really the only one in it, but his downward spiral into total madness is done amazingly well.What I did not like was the misleading (in my opinion) storyline synopsis. The dialogue touches on Peter (the main character) being in the Army which is the reason and the means in which he met the man coming to visit. Nothing is implied he was ever in combat or even left the States. I was expecting a compelling drama about a man coping with the scars left on him from the horrors of war and his need to overcome them.Here's the potential spoiler: He is obviously gay, met a man in the army and fell in love. They are blocked from seeing each other and that, coupled with the absolute control his mother has over him causes him to unravel. I didn't say EVERYTHING, but I think I summed up the movie far better than what we're handed, which is a half truth and THAT bothers the hell out of me.Mr. Oyelowo does a magnificent job and the photography has just enough of a claustrophobic feel that the movie is fascinating. Why lie about the subject matter, or tell only a fraction of the truth. I'm not sure I get it, but then again, maybe I'm not supposed to.It's a good movie and I may have felt it was a GREAT movie if I didn't walk into it on a false premise. Then again, maybe I still wouldn't think it was THAT great, but I would have appreciated it more.

debrakessing I don't do reviews. Movies are subjective. I felt the need however, with this acting lesson of a film by one man. ONE ACTOR in the entire thing. Not one single dull moment, no over the top or expositional acts to bring us out of this man's world.I knew David Oyelowo was an excellent actor. I don't believe that description is enough to hint at the magnitude of his talent after watching Nightingale. We have all said such & such does not appear to be acting because they are so natural. Well, add to that being the ONLY PERSON in the film AND an extremely nuanced character - covering most every emotion in the space of ninety minutes and you can begin to see why you must watch this movie!!

MovieHoliks I just saw this new film, which I "think" is an HBO original, off HBO GO over the weekend, and despite some good reviews, I just was not terribly impressed. David Oyelowo, who just portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr., in last year's "Selma", stars as a lonely war veteran who psychologically unravels ahead of an old friend's impending visit. This is a real downer of a film. That in and of itself is not a deal breaker for me, but this is one of those "One Man Show" movies that really bug me. I think it's because they just seem so staged-?? Oyelowo is good in the role, no doubt about that, but watching 80 minutes of this was practically tantamount to torture! LOL For me, a good instance of taking a one man show, and converting it into film was Chazz Palminteri's wonderful "A Bronx Tale", which the film version was directed by Robert DeNiro, and Palminteri had a key supporting role. You take the one man show, and you expand upon it to make it more "cinematic"... I would say check out THAT film instead if you haven't seen it already...