The value of entertainment is subjective so I think you need to back up the claim about multiple levels. Its not my intent to defend this piece of Tarantino's work but rather to challenge a unsubstantiated claim.That is to say cheap shots are easy, but ultimately worthless.
When I read your comment that the film is "working on multiple levels," I felt that you were giving rather lofty praise for a schlock film. The fact that it draws stylistic influence from other genres doesn't qualify as working on multiple levels. When George Lucas took a Western and set it in Space, that didn't make Star Wars "work on multiple levels." (We could have a separate discussion about whether Star Wars, or Westerns work on multiple levels, but I'm saying that a stylistic choice, in itself, doesn't mean that the film is "working on different levels").
When I think about "working on multiple levels," I often think of allegorical films. An example is Deliverance; a film that seems like a basic escape from hell narrative with action, horror, suspense and all that good stuff. But it invites a thoughtful view of attitudes to rape (shocking us with a male rape), about male machismo, about stereotypes of country vs. city, educated vs. uneducated, modern vs. traditional values.
Fuck it, Paddington Bear works on multiple levels - on the one hand it's a story about a cute bear and some baddies, on the other hand it examines current British attitudes to immigration with a deft use of Calypso music, which was the soundtrack to the first wave of immigration to Britain after WW2. That's working on two levels.
When I watched Kill Bill, I saw a pastiche of Tarantino's favorite styles with a yawn-inducing revenge plot and two-dimensional characters. If it is attempting to work on multiple levels, I find that it fails, because I simply can't tell what those levels are supposed to be. As a piece of entertainment it also fails... I'm speaking for myself, of course. It's my opinion. And my opinion is subjective, natch.
Peace.
