You're right, it wasn't _one_ of his best works. It was his best. Or at least one of his best. I saw it three times at the DGA theater, one with a Q&A with the man himself. I'll watch it anytime I can on the big screen in the future. Just an incredible world to hang out in.
He did paint what felt like an authentic world, though I didn't grow up then so have no context. Since he did, I can only assume a lot of it is accurate, minus the fictitious stuff he did. It was different than anything I've seen him done before, and I think it's one of those movies that helps when you know what you're getting into, or at the very least re-watch it after so you're not taken aback by the slim narrative. The book was a more complete picture than the film. It was just A LOT. Stuff that felt gratuitous for no other reason than to just be there.
@@JasonFuhrman His screenplays are very novelistic and fun to read. Unfortunately, I can't compare the screenplay of OUTIH to the book, because the script isn't available anywhere, but when I picked up the book to read, I felt like it was reaching... I put it down pretty quickly because I didn't want it to ruin my love of the film. I've written a lot of screenplays. They are different animals than novels. Lots of great books turned into scripts, but hardly the other way around. Stray Dogs was a script that became a novel, then a movie (U-Turn), but the book was simplistic. Movie wasn't much better. Tarantino is a great screenplay writer, but I agree with your take on this book. Just not the film ;)
@@JasonFuhrman Also I think he fancies himself as a hardboiled writer in the vein of James Ellroy, and his ego wouldn't allow him to pass it off to someone else.
@@zyrrhos yeah I can see his ego getting in the way. Another commenter mentioned he respects Elmore Leonard. I just don't see it in this book. It's kind of all over the place.
Oh, I would definitely say that Tarantino wrote this book for himself. XD I think we had similar experiences reading this book. Rick Dalton's character really was much more fully rendered here than in the film; (including the stutter which I didn't even notice until rewatching the film). But Cliff, who was really the hero in the movie, was an unlikeable psychopath in the book. And also, while I really did like the emotional note the book ends on, I feel like the alternate history twist ending of the film was a stronger way to wrap up an otherwise aimless story. But really, even though I would never call this book high art, I kinda gotta tip my hat to it because of just how many rules it so flagrantly breaks. XD Copious inane movie trivia, a metric assload of info-dumping, and prose that at times makes Stephen King look like Shakespeare; Tarantino appears to have given no shits about what any prospective readers might think, and I think I can kinda see some of myself in that, lol. XD
I wonder how much of a reader Tarantino is, as in breaking the rules on purpose or it being a product of pure ignorance. I forgot to mention in the review that there were so many instances of unnecessary direction that are often in scripts, which makes me think it's just something he does because he's a screenwriter. I wouldn't be surprised if he rarely reads and gives no fucks about rules versus he did any of it for effect, but I could also be completely wrong.
@@JasonFuhrman I do know he likes Clive Barker. I saw a blurb from him on my copy of Weaveworld. He also likes Elmore Leonard, considering he adapted one of his books and their styles are similar. Particularly with dialogue.
@@JasonFuhrman Actually, I think he does read at least a little bit. I think he's a big fan of crime fiction, in particular Elmore Leonard (hence Jackie Brown), and just this past year he blurbed the Hard Case Crime book Nobody's Angel as being his favorite of the year. He's actually wanted to write a book for some time now. Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight I believe were both initially intended to be novels. Granted, the kind of books I guess he reads probably aren't those known for real literary prowess, but still, he really threw caution to the wind when he wrote this book, lol. Honestly if anyone else had written this I highly doubt it would have been published.
I'm often suspicious when I find myself agreeing with you more often than not. But yeah, I agree that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is one of QT's weaker films. Aside from the ending, I thought it was just a vibe movie without much purpose. I like a hang out movie from time to time, but Once Upon a Time in Hollywood feels like it's jumbling several genres and tones, without really settling on one. I don't generally read novelizations of films, I just prefer to watch the film as was intended. But maybe I'll give this a shake. Clint Booth was a pimp?! Well I gotta see this!
He doesn't really have any weak films, except for maybe Death Proof. And I'd rank Once Upon A Time in his top three. Which is hard to do. A case can be made for most of his films as being his best. I saw this OUTIH three times in the theater. I loved hanging out in the world he created that much. And his signature is jumbling or mashing up genres. i.e. Django is a western blaxploitation film. Hateful Eight is an Agatha Christy whodunnit against a western backdrop. Brilliant.
You're right, it wasn't _one_ of his best works. It was his best. Or at least one of his best. I saw it three times at the DGA theater, one with a Q&A with the man himself. I'll watch it anytime I can on the big screen in the future. Just an incredible world to hang out in.
He did paint what felt like an authentic world, though I didn't grow up then so have no context. Since he did, I can only assume a lot of it is accurate, minus the fictitious stuff he did.
It was different than anything I've seen him done before, and I think it's one of those movies that helps when you know what you're getting into, or at the very least re-watch it after so you're not taken aback by the slim narrative.
The book was a more complete picture than the film. It was just A LOT. Stuff that felt gratuitous for no other reason than to just be there.
@@JasonFuhrman His screenplays are very novelistic and fun to read. Unfortunately, I can't compare the screenplay of OUTIH to the book, because the script isn't available anywhere, but when I picked up the book to read, I felt like it was reaching... I put it down pretty quickly because I didn't want it to ruin my love of the film.
I've written a lot of screenplays. They are different animals than novels. Lots of great books turned into scripts, but hardly the other way around. Stray Dogs was a script that became a novel, then a movie (U-Turn), but the book was simplistic. Movie wasn't much better. Tarantino is a great screenplay writer, but I agree with your take on this book. Just not the film ;)
Haha totally fair
Tarantino voice is certainly present through out the book. He still may have had a writer help him.
It's possible, though I'm not sure he'd need a writer's help. This felt very Tarantino.
@@JasonFuhrman Also I think he fancies himself as a hardboiled writer in the vein of James Ellroy, and his ego wouldn't allow him to pass it off to someone else.
@@zyrrhos yeah I can see his ego getting in the way. Another commenter mentioned he respects Elmore Leonard. I just don't see it in this book. It's kind of all over the place.
Oh, I would definitely say that Tarantino wrote this book for himself. XD I think we had similar experiences reading this book. Rick Dalton's character really was much more fully rendered here than in the film; (including the stutter which I didn't even notice until rewatching the film). But Cliff, who was really the hero in the movie, was an unlikeable psychopath in the book. And also, while I really did like the emotional note the book ends on, I feel like the alternate history twist ending of the film was a stronger way to wrap up an otherwise aimless story. But really, even though I would never call this book high art, I kinda gotta tip my hat to it because of just how many rules it so flagrantly breaks. XD Copious inane movie trivia, a metric assload of info-dumping, and prose that at times makes Stephen King look like Shakespeare; Tarantino appears to have given no shits about what any prospective readers might think, and I think I can kinda see some of myself in that, lol. XD
Never change Carroll.
I wonder how much of a reader Tarantino is, as in breaking the rules on purpose or it being a product of pure ignorance. I forgot to mention in the review that there were so many instances of unnecessary direction that are often in scripts, which makes me think it's just something he does because he's a screenwriter.
I wouldn't be surprised if he rarely reads and gives no fucks about rules versus he did any of it for effect, but I could also be completely wrong.
@@JasonFuhrman I do know he likes Clive Barker. I saw a blurb from him on my copy of Weaveworld. He also likes Elmore Leonard, considering he adapted one of his books and their styles are similar. Particularly with dialogue.
@@someokiedude9549 interesting. Thanks for the info!
@@JasonFuhrman Actually, I think he does read at least a little bit. I think he's a big fan of crime fiction, in particular Elmore Leonard (hence Jackie Brown), and just this past year he blurbed the Hard Case Crime book Nobody's Angel as being his favorite of the year. He's actually wanted to write a book for some time now. Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight I believe were both initially intended to be novels. Granted, the kind of books I guess he reads probably aren't those known for real literary prowess, but still, he really threw caution to the wind when he wrote this book, lol. Honestly if anyone else had written this I highly doubt it would have been published.
I'm often suspicious when I find myself agreeing with you more often than not.
But yeah, I agree that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is one of QT's weaker films. Aside from the ending, I thought it was just a vibe movie without much purpose. I like a hang out movie from time to time, but Once Upon a Time in Hollywood feels like it's jumbling several genres and tones, without really settling on one. I don't generally read novelizations of films, I just prefer to watch the film as was intended. But maybe I'll give this a shake.
Clint Booth was a pimp?! Well I gotta see this!
Yeah Cliff is awesome (in a dark way) in this book. The movie version of him feels empty in comparison.
He doesn't really have any weak films, except for maybe Death Proof. And I'd rank Once Upon A Time in his top three. Which is hard to do. A case can be made for most of his films as being his best. I saw this OUTIH three times in the theater. I loved hanging out in the world he created that much. And his signature is jumbling or mashing up genres. i.e. Django is a western blaxploitation film. Hateful Eight is an Agatha Christy whodunnit against a western backdrop. Brilliant.
It is Tarantino second best film.