Your elemental choices differ from Tarantino's and so would your 'style' differ from his. In architecture where composition is also crucial there exists a style known as 'Brutalism' as well as a style known as 'Rococo'; neither of which is universally applicable to fulfilling all of architecture's many needs. Likewise in film there must be definite choices made which promote certain exaggerations at the expense of other aspects which are neglected or given a lesser status in the composition as a whole. You might think that 'symmetry' is so basic to architecture that it is essential in all compositions yet we have seen plenty of 'Victiorian' heaps which have eschewed symmetry in some bold gesture to mimic our own minds bi-cameral and complementary plan.

Your points are well noted but they do not alter the given conditions from which any discussion of a film must begin. Those conditions include the well known and the less well known which always adds the element of uncertainty to the equation which is exactly why film making is an art and not a science. Further there does not exist some single authoritarian viewer whose mind is fully known and who is the arbiter of any given film's adequacy. There are many viewers with many diverse experiences and states of mind to whom the film must attempt to present a unitary vision; a truly daunting challenge.

Your humorous quip (Magnificent 7 meets Shoot Em Up directed by Raimi wannabe) acknowledges this eclectic aspect of the art of film beautifully. Indeed that plastic ability to be juxtaposed and morphed or even transmogrified into something new yet still recognizable is what differentiates art from the 'hard sciences' like chemistry and physics where regularity and invariance are the bases of the very sciences themselves and elements can only be combined according to rigid rules regardless of one's desire to do otherwise.