>- removes any credibility by opening with a close one-on-one
>fight, which should have been a walk in the park if Uma had
>already wiped out 100 samurais.

Not necessarily. Vivica was another member of the elite assassins group (deadly vipers or something) so it would stand to reason by kung-fu movie ethics that she would be tougher to kill than 100 evil stooges.

>- gives an emotional back story to a character we've already
>been told is evil (the girl whose family was killed)

that's his steez, that's always been Tarantino's steez--the idea that there is no evil. that's what the whole movie gets at too: Vivica has become a soccer Mom, it's a big disturbing scene that she takes a knife to the chest in front of her kid. Lucy Liu has this big tragic story, it's almost sad when she apologizes for ridiculing Uma, then gets her shit cut off at the end of the fight. Tarantino does this a lot, plays with the audience in terms of campy violence vs. disturbingly real violence. It's usually pretty effective.

>- opens with an example of screen violence at its most
>powerful, then follows for the rest of the film as a guide
>in making it completely superficial

Which goes with my above comment.

>- random use of black and white
>
Not random, this is totally a homage. You can see the Street Fighter movies alone and know this. Apart from that, it was a clever way at getting around a pending NC-17 for the theatrical release. The all color version will probably come out on DVD.

>- the "revenge theme" music (the siren when she recognises a
>target) that's supposed to have the audience in frenzied
>anticipation of the bloodbath to follow by the end of the
>film, loses its effect if you've got to wait 4 months
>between volumes
>
keep in mind, the movie wasn't just made for theatrical release, don't you kind of have to think of it in terms of the big picture, not just the RIGHT NOW picture?

>- for a film so concerned with style its presentation of Uma
>Thurman (who frankly has very suspect nostrils for a
>hollywood lead) is distinctly non-glamourous esp. compared
>to Pulp Fiction. We first see her hunched over a steering
>wheel like an old woman.

Well, that's subjective, you can't really argue it...
>
>- aimlessly wavers between serious (the wedding, the rapes,
>her baby, the anime) and the silly (pretty much the rest of
>the film)
>
Again, that's a Tarantino trait, always has been. Characters can talk about pie, oral sex, Elvis, McDonalds and tacos, then turn around and get into the most brutally ugly events.

>What the fuck is he playing at?
>
>(he also contradicts common perceptions of what a Tarantino
>film is, but that's a different matter)

If he had followed the (or rather, your) precerption of what a Tarantino film is, he'd be out of a job mighty quick. And honestly, all the 'perceptions' I see in the Tarantino film are there--he just switched genres.

1Love,
Shuggy