So what, in your eyes, has kept him short of greatness? I agree with all the positive things you said re: the emotional content, and he seems to be a very technically adept director. I'm not saying he's perfect, but I'm hard-pressed to find any obvious flaws.
Except for the clear and obvious flaws of completely and utterly ripping of Altman and Scorsese, most present in
Magnolia.
Magnolia has so many similarities to
Short Cuts, it's ridiculous, up to and including the bizarre "act of God" ending.
You talk about how technically adept he is, and you are right, but he swiped much of his technical style from Scorsese's films. Again,
Magnolia is the worst in this aspect.
That said... I like his stuff. He is certainly not a hack or a bad director, and I think he is a good, if not original, writer. I like the pacing of his films and I have to give props to a guy that takes on a project as difficult to put together as Boogie Knights and pulls it off.
In fact, I would say he is probably one of the better writer/directors working today, but he clearly owes a whole helluva lot to Altman and Scorsese.
I do own and like a lot of his flicks, though. He writes great comedy scenes, as well as some very touching personal scenes that hit home.
You know what they say - If you are going to borrow, borrow from the greats, so I can't completely dislike the dude for lifting so much, but I certainly won't agree with him being some sort of God-like director.
There Will be Blood was stellar, by the by. Arguably his best work, with lots of help from Daniel-Day Lewis.