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.

Tarantino voice is certainly present through out the book. He still may have had a writer help him.

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'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!