I have to admit, there’s something kind of neat about getting to see a major theatrical release at home in the comfort of your own living room, even if you’re forgoing the experience of a 40-foot screen and cinematic surround sound; it sort of feels like cheating – as though you’re getting something for free that ought to have cost you $50 without concessions.

Such is the case with Wonder Woman 84, and perhaps the treat of not paying to see it (outside of the HBO Max Subscription I was paying for anyway) made the whole thing a little more palatable to my eyes, because – unlike apparently the majority of the world – I really, really liked it. Not in the way I expected, and certainly not in the way it was sold to me through endless marketing and trailers, but I liked it, and I think for good reason.

The DC Extended Universe has largely been plagued with mediocre to terrible movies, ever since the disastrous Batman v. Superman and the equally unlikable Justice League, and despite Aquaman getting reasonable reviews and people generally favoring the first Wonder Woman, most of the films that take place in this shared universe of characters come off as a cheap attempt to replicate the success of Marvel’s seemingly endless series of Avengers movies. In fact, everything about the DCEU seems as though they are trying to copy Marvel, whilst still attempting to be original – even the setting of the first Wonder Woman film during World War I to differentiate it from Captain America (set during World War II) cheapens an otherwise decent movie.

And in a way, Wonder Woman 84 is another example of this, to the extreme of paralleling – ironically – Marvel’s weakest series of films: the Thor standalone films. When Thor was first released, it did well enough, particularly considering that it was a character few people were familiar with, and a concept that was overly serious in nature. Thor: The Dark World, however, is widely considered to be one of the weakest moments in the Avengers series, and it took Taika Waititi to reinvent Thor in humorous bright neon for Thor: Ragnarok for the character to become as well-loved as he is today.

Whilst the first Wonder Woman was, as I mentioned before, a good film, it was a very serious movie, full of plight and peril, and very little humor. (I mean come on – Diana fights the literal god of war at the end.) And whilst this grit might have worked for WW84, it could also have come off as trying to Batman-ify the character, and would likely have set the franchise back even further than it already is (if that were even possible).

Instead, the writers, directors and cast of WW84 took a page out of Waititi’s book, and turned to vivid, bright colors and humor to carry the weight of their sequel. However, rather than coming off as a clone of Thor: Ragnarok, they managed to pull off a delightful, if sometimes irrelevant (more on this later), take on 80s nostalgia.

You see, WW84 isn’t just set in the 80s; the entire film, from its set design to its costumes, from the language to the plot itself, absolutely reeks – in all the best ways – of action movies made in the 1980s. It’s almost as if director Patty Jenkins decided to see if she could make a movie that would be right at home alongside Lethal Weapon and The Goonies and Rambo. Everything that would have been in an 80s movie – from cheesy villains to props that look like costume jewelry to clothing-try-on montages – is present, and the movie simply bathes in the campiness of it all.

Herein lies the true genius of WW84: not that it replicates the 80s accurately (because it doesn’t), but because it delicately toes the line between an homage and a parody of 80s film. If you go into this movie expecting accurate depictions of the 1980s à la Stranger Things, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. If, however, you expect it to come off more like Last Action Hero, you might just be pleasantly surprised.

And the movie is self-aware enough to pull this off. Take, for example, an exchange between Gal Gadot’s Diana Prince and Kristen Wiig’s Barbara Minerva early on in the film in which they call something lame almost 10 times in fifteen seconds. Yes – lame was an 80s word; but even the most diehard 80s enthusiast, entrenched in nostalgia, wouldn’t use the word that much. The thing about this is that it doesn’t try to be accurate, but it isn’t quite parody, either – just enough humor to chuckle, without detracting from the overall story, and a tongue firmly embedded in the cheek.

I believe this movie was never intended to be taken seriously – neither for its plot, its setting, nor even its visual effects, which are certainly – at times – subpar. It was DC’s attempt to recreate the smash hit that was Thor: Ragnarok, and the only reason it didn’t land well is because it does it perhaps too heavy-handedly at times. It isn’t outright humor, as Waititi might have done; it ironically doesn’t patronize the viewer, but actually asks you to pay attention in order to find the humor. And if you do, there’s plenty of it.

The only thing that, to me, detracts from the overall experience is that fact that 80s nostalgia is very 2000-and-late; Stranger Things did it to death, and there’s not much room left in the world for retro mohawks and mullets. That being said, they couldn’t have set it in the 90s – Captain Marvel bagged that cat – and the 70s wouldn’t have quite worked for the not-so-subtle commentary about selfishness and materialism, given the 80s’ notoriety for being the decade of decadence, so really it did the best it could with what it had.

If you’ve seen Wonder Woman 84 already and didn’t like it, I urge you to watch it through this lens. If you haven’t seen it yet, I encourage you to keep an open mind; it’s one of the funniest and most light-hearted DC movies I’ve seen since Shazam, and works very well for what it is. It’s no Endgame, but it’s a welcome change of pace from Man of Steel and its ilk, and an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours if you have nothing better to do.