I Don't Get the Appeal of Phil Lord and Chris Miller

Left to right: Chris Miller and Phil Lord

To put it bluntly: I don't get the appeal of directing duo Chris Miller and Phil Lord. While they are far from the worst that cinema has to offer, their recent rise in the echelon of acclaim makes no sense. With their latest film, 22 Jump Street, set to be released tomorrow, I find myself scratching my head and wondering what it is that I am missing. Having seen all of their films up to this point, I try to find the discernible traits that make them great. The only problem is that I haven't quite found it yet. What is their appeal?

It all started with their debut Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which I failed to see until being hipped to it by a friend with reliable tastes. I do overlook my share of animated films if the trailer doesn't grab me, and I assumed by his compliments that this was the case. Upon watching it, I found myself going down a hole that I have yet to escape. It wasn't that it was bad, but it just seemed too eager to please. There was countless food puns and really forced kiddie humor. There was a man in a diaper and really disturbing uses of food. I admit that it was a kids film and not everything within that genre appeals to me. However, it was the start of a problem that I have had with them since.

Based on the general critical acclaim, I have also watched their other films 21 Jump Street and The LEGO Movie. Where Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs slid by on creativity, I found these two to have some diminishing returns. The idea of rebooting a franchise with "meta" humor is nothing new. However, the approach of winking at the camera becomes tiresome after awhile and the joy of watching 21 Jump Street commentate on all of the tropes felt ludicrous. It was a highbrow concept in a film where the jokes were intentionally dumb and the defining statement was "Fuck you, science." Along with the feeling that all stakes were missing, the choice to subvert the genre by subverting expectations felt forced. Nothing felt confident and instead glossed over it with a wink at the camera.

With the news that 22 Jump Street is even more meta, I feel the need to come clean. I do not get this approach to comedy at all. While it is true that studio comedies in general have rarely been funny in a way that doesn't feel dumbed down, it seems strange to herald Lord and Miller as the new kings. They may have fun with their material and breathe life into it, but encouraging me to love The LEGO Movie simply because of its creative take on consumerism feels wrong. Everything happens but there are no consequences. They may divert expectations, but they feel essentially the same.

The LEGO Movie was particularly hard to understand because of its defining ability to sum up why I don't get Lord and Miller. It may manage to make the idea of Lego into something fun, but the energy and humor wasn't right. It was... dumb and convenient. Yes, the ideas were high concept, but it doesn't work if everything is convenient. There is a moment within the film where somebody says "I mean, it's not like a gigantic ship is just going to come out of nowhere and save US by gosh" onto to have the joke payoff within seconds. The ship appears and the plot progresses. True, the story needs to keep moving, but why even set up jokes like that? It is the most blatant in a long line of grating moments in which the film sacrifices its ingenuity with really obvious jokes that almost seem to come across like "You're breathing air, but helium makes you sound funny."

From: 21 Jump Street

Maybe I am missing the childlike sense of wonder. Even then, that doesn't explain why I cannot appreciate the R-rated 21 Jump Street. Scenes in which characters take drugs are particularly grating because of the multiple stages, including "The Giggs." Terminology like this makes me feel like they are pandering too much. Maybe I am dissecting their meta humor too much, but it doesn't work on the core that you can be intelligent while also doing really stupid stuff. There is no bridgework. 

As a whole, I have yet to fully like a Lord and Miller film because of this. The truth is that they aren't the worst. So why am I attacking them? Because all of their work is currently rated over 85% on Rotten Tomatoes and for too long, I have felt like the only one who doesn't "get" their humor. It feels like they have a formula to make reboots tongue-in-cheek, but otherwise, they feel like studio directors who don't add much beyond the broad jokes. I don't feel like they're these great auteurs of comedy nor do I think that their work is as exceptional as everyone claims. 

So what am I missing? Why can I not see them as these exceptional voices in modern comedy? Is it because I am too pretentious and can't enjoy the simple things? Is it because the filmmakers feel like they are eager to please while commenting on pleasing you? It baffles me and I feel uncomfortable saying this, but I do find them highly overrated. It isn't that they don't try, but their comedy feels lazy in comparison to their cinematic architecture, and it infuriates me a bit. I see the joke, but there isn't any weight behind it to make me laugh or care. I want to know why, because commenting on genre tropes should be a haven for great comedy. I just don't think that Lord and Miller are necessarily doing it in all that effective of a manner.