Tarantino dubs Hollywood his best film

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Quentin Tarantino firmly meditated this November over all his films that "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is really the best thing I've ever done." I'm wondering if he'll ever "change his mind." Yet, despite overwhelmingly poorer reviews compared to his other works, Django (8.3), Pulp Fiction (8.9), Hollywood (7.6), I just watched this film and can see a bit where he's coming from, but in terms of his reportoire only. Character-wise, these are maybe the best batch of characters we've seen from the writer slash director, but in an understated meaning. For one, I didn't really care about a movie generalizing 60s 'kids' and featuring their silly trends, but for a Tarantino film you could feel the talent click into place from the main stars. Now, the film is a fictional drama, but based on some historical stories of whose preknowledge isn't remotely necessary to understand. "Ugh another DiCaprio movie" I said, about an actor I'm lukewarm about, where by the end I felt he played one of the best co-stars in his career. Understated, like a salad, or a tape worm. A great match all three. The cinematography was literally 20-20s, relevance intended, as it was also understated, like utterly simple themes but, only Tarantino could make this feel way better than it looked? He made simple flashy stills of concepts come actually alive, like a real home that would be ours. And aside from the actors, the writing may have played a huge role, although on the surface simple [1]. There was a lot of simple in this movie. Simple story, simple tropes, simple dialogue, simple meaning. So was this movie, simple? Or one of his best ever? For me, I only enjoyed it a lot after it was over, because only then I realized how much it truly transported me... this time it was similar to a David Lynch show or movie in this sense. World building. That was it. Tarantino had crafted this other world so well, but out of such very simple pieces, and some great role fits. As a cohesive piece, I feel that DiCaprio had too many 'acting' scenes. I still would've trimmed his time in the movie and focused on writing a second act for Brad instead. The use of the dog as a character was genius, in fact I gladly recognize him as the fourth main character of the film, and was overall happy to see good major films still being made. Beforehand I just got done rewatching Scorsese and his Wolf of DiCaprio, and was utterly disappointed by the triteness and lack of novelty. The movie seemed like all shock and no content to me, feeling like a good director was starting to decay, but from the reviews it should have been something meaningful, no? With Hollywood I had the exact opposite reaction, and have placed this film closer to Pulp Fiction, in an understated way, or perhaps, one single overstatement.