Bad idea or just failed attempt at Altmanesque satire?

Like most other posters here I enjoyed the first two films very much. Then I saw the rating for this one and had a few glimpses at some of the comments, and some were positive enough.

The beginning was kind of promising, but then, like many others have pointed out, I would often catch myself in shock over the dullness of some scenes, the stupidity of some characters, the plot holes etc.

And then it hit me. Everything went south the minute they switched styles, didn't it? Note that the cameraman was not just any cameraman. And when his camera got destroyed it was probably some kind of statement about cinéma vérité vs. blockbuster bullsh it, or something like that.

Also, the cameraman specifically said he was from Filmax, the actual company that produced this film. So the conversation at the beginning about film styles and so on, that wasn't random.

Does this mean it was meant to be an example of how big budgets ruin original ideas? Of how corny stories attract zombie audiences? Kind of like Altman's "The Player"... I don't know. It's a reasonable interpretation, but if that's the case, the attempt wasn't quite successful in its execution.

Some scenes (statements?) just really didn't work. The scene when he finally drags her out of the underground tunnel and they kiss and hug for half an hour (no other zombie except the first one had legs to climb a ladder in the meantime?), well, that scene for example felt excessively stupid. If it was meant to be satirical, it was still over-the-top.

All in all, it was pretty boring no matter how you look at it.

_________________
"A right must exist independently of its exercise."
- Inside I'm Dancing