Fletch Lives: Is It Trying to Be Bad, or Just...Bad?

Okay, cinephiles, Sarah here. I just subjected myself to Fletch Lives (1989), and I'm...confused. I went in expecting a fun, cheesy rewatch, maybe some hidden gems in the cinematography (I'm always looking!). What I got was...well, a lot. First off, the 'fish out of water' trope is beaten to death here. Fletch in Louisiana...it's just broad strokes, not nuanced. And the directing? I seriously had to Google it because it felt so...random. Michael Ritchie, apparently. I wouldn't call it inspired, but it almost feels deliberately off-kilter. Like, are they trying to make a bad movie? Is this some kind of meta-commentary on sequels? The scene where Fletch is teaching those yokels how to play polo on lawnmowers is so bizarre, it circles back around to being almost brilliant. Almost. My theory? I think they knew they couldn't recapture the magic of the first Fletch, so they just went wild. Chevy Chase is clearly having fun, and maybe that's the point? It's not a good movie, per se, but it's strangely watchable in its awfulness. The lighting is often flat, the camera work is pretty basic, and the plot is thinner than a crepe, but maybe the point is the subversion of expectation? What do YOU guys think? Am I grasping at straws trying to find some kind of artistic merit here, or is there something genuinely intriguing in its utter lack of pretension? Side note: I did find a few instances of nice use of shadows in the mansion scenes, creating a moody, gothic feel...but they're so fleeting, buried under layers of hammy acting and corny jokes, they're easily missed. Someone give me a better movie to dissect, please!