I looked at this question as one of personal stature, and of whose films are highly anticipated artistic "events." If that's the case, I would say "no one," because Kubrick also had box office successes under his belt. But let's look at these candidates using both the artistic/commercial criteria (Warning: VERY broad generalizations ahead):
David Lynch - Was a household name for a brief period thanks to Twin Peaks, then the consensus among critics and audiences for nearly a decade was that he lost his way until Mulholland Drive restored his reputation. Now he has a strong cult following, but thanks to his current distribution methods is unlikely to have another hit even if he makes a "normal" movie.
Terrence Malick - I think he has just moved closer to this role w/ Tree of Life. He seems to have much more name recognition now than he did even a few years ago when The New World came out. I don't even actually know how Tree of Life is doing at the box office, but he is such an anachronism - and people have such
visceral, negative reaction to his films - he will likely remain mostly a critic/cinephile favorite.
Paul Thomas Anderson- There Will Be Blood elevated him to a brand new level, but he still hasn't crossed over and had a real hit, or gotten much mainstream name recognition. The fact that his next film is a veiled look at Scientology might get some mainstream buzz, but it doesn’t have a bankable star so I’m kind of skeptical about that.
Quentin Tarantino – Oddly enough, he may be the closest, even though he obviously doesn’t have a lot in common w/ Kubrick. He’s well-known by the general public and basically proved everybody but a few naysayers wrong with Inglorious Basterds, which was both critically acclaimed and a #1 hit. His obsession with B-movie trash and his own mouth keeps him from the aura of “respectability” that directors of comparable stature would normally have though. Also the fact that he’s more than a little bit of a rip-off artist, albeit a gifted one.
