Thing the first: Captain America!

I saw it! It was great! And I wrote about it for Film4, thusly:

It’s true that it doesn’t aspire to be anything particularly weighty or original – but at what it sets out to do, it rarely puts a foot wrong. Director Joe Johnston, in full-on Rocketeer mode, crafts a charming and entertaining period action romp that may never exactly hit an unpredictable beat, but is no less enjoyable for it.

Miles better than Green Lantern, not quite as good as X-Men: First Class, but about on a level with Thor. Splendid.

(Less splendid : Rotten Tomatoes posting the review, but not attributing it to me – just to “Film4″ generally – thus meaning it’s missing from my scorecard. Booo!)

Thing the second: New podcast!

My regular collaborator/partner in crime/argument board James Hunt and I have launched a new comics podcast, via our website Alternate Cover. It’s called The Graphic Novel Book Club, and it does exactly what it sounds like – each month, we solicit comments from our readers/listeners on a different graphic novel or trade paperback collection, setting discussion topic questions but also looking for any opinions/insights/etc. that people might have – then we throw them into the mix with our own thoughts and sit there chatting about it all for three-quarters of an hour. The first episode is now live on Podomatic and iTunes, and we’ve already posted discussion topics for the second, which we’ll be recording in a couple of weeks. Have a listen! Some people say it’s listenable and entertaining even if you don’t know the comics we’re talking about. I couldn’t possibly comment.

(And yes, it does have a slightly tautological name. “The Graphic Novel Club” might have been better, but then it wouldn’t have been as clear that we were specifically using a book group/book club format. It would have just sounded like a club.)

Thing the third: When Saturday Comes #295!

I’ve written at unnecessarily gushing length in the past about how much of an honour it is to write for When Saturday Comes, so I won’t retread all that ground again. But! This month is quite special, because for years now I’ve read their annual season preview supplement – in which one writer for each club in the league answers questions about their opinions on the previous season and expectations for the coming one – and thought about what I’d say if I were doing the section on Liverpool. So it’s quite exciting that this year, those answers are actually in the real supplement. I actually did a little double-take when I got the email asking if I’d do it. No, really.

What’s more, in the issue itself, an article I did a little while back about the history and merits (or lack thereof) of the away goals rule has made it to print. It’s not quite as exciting a piece as I was hoping when I started it – I was hoping to go into more extensive details about the circumstances of the rule’s creation/introduction, but discovered surprisingly little readily-available information despite doing some extensive library-based research and everything – but it’s still a relatively fun skim over the rule’s history and musing on whether or not it’s still a valid method of settling draws nowadays. Er, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Anyway, the issue’s out in shops on Wednesday – I’d post a picture of the cover, but WSC haven’t put it on their website yet. But it’s issue #295, it costs £3.50, and it’s got Stewart Downing, Phil Jones and Jordan Henderson on the front. So, you know. Buy it, if you like.

What follows is an uninspired superhero origin story that trots out all the predictable story beats of the genre without ever adding anything new or inspired. All the good promise of both the concept and some excellent effects sequences is lost in a script that is determined to plod its hero from A (reckless responsibility-phobe) to B (world-saving hero) without ever developing or exploring his personality along the way.

So that’s a big fat “no”, then. The rest’s over at Film4.

And also, although it was a few weeks ago, I’m quite pleased with my main contribution to the Doctor Who review canon this year (we’ll ignore my sloppy, far-too-short and unfocused review of “Day of the Moon”) – I’ve been waiting a long, long time for Neil Gaiman to write an episode of the show, so there’s a good reason why my write-up of “The Doctor’s Wife” is somewhat long and rambling. But I think I hit upon a nice theme with it, and that it’s a good piece all in all, so… yeah.

Firstly! There’s another issue of the fine and august publication When Saturday Comes out with something by me in it. Just a little something, mind – a sidebar piece for the regular “Screen Test” feature, in which old football-related VHSes are dusted off and written about. What did I review? Well, you’ll have to buy the magazine to find out, innit. But it’s something I used to own about twenty years ago, then recently remembered about, and thought “Hey, I should buy that off eBay and then write about it for WSC, shouldn’t I?” So I did. The cover looks uncannily like that picture on the left, and you can find out more about what’s in the issue here.

Secondly, last week I went to see the first of this year’s barrage of superhero movies, Thor, and then reviewed it for Film 4. And here that is. I didn’t make a single joke about how the lead character’s name sounds like someone with a lisp saying “sore”. I think that shows remarkable restraint and maturity.

It’s an oft-stated truism that there aren’t enough “strong female characters” in movies. But it’s also a truism that whenever people do decide to put together a list of “strong female characters” from movies, they tend to zoom in on one particular word – and one particular interpretation of that word – and focus on discussing characters who are, literally, physically “strong”. Look up any list of the best female characters in film, and you’ll usually be presented with a list that is largely made up of (with the exception of perennial favourites Holly Golightly and Annie Hall) ass-kicking action heroines such as Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, The Bride, Trinity, assorted Milla Jovovich characters, and so on.

Some of these deserve their places on these lists (I’ll fight anyone who dares argue that Ripley, in the second film especially, isn’t the greatest action movie heroine of all time), and some probably don’t (hello Lara Croft). But I’ve also noticed a name that these lists don’t often tend to include – Fargo‘s Marge Gunderson. This despite the fact that she is, for my money, one of the best female characters in movie history. So in honour of International Women’s Day, and inspired in part by this latest from Kate Beaton showing up this morning, here’s a little bit about why.

Marge is the emotional centre of Fargo, a dark and violent black comedy about nasty and/or misguided people doing nasty things to one-another. She’s intelligent (showing a Holmesian display of deductive reasoning when first visiting the initial crime scene), kind, empathetic, insightful, funny, and satisfied with her lot – enjoying her work and a healthy and loving relationship with her husband that, while it doesn’t necessarily subvert traditional gender roles, certainly blurs them (their memorable introductory appearance is a flip on the classic “sleepy cop answers phone in middle of night” routine, as Marge takes the call while Norm trundles out of bed to make her some eggs).

Quite crucially, however, part of what makes Marge so great is the fact that she’s a woman. A problem with so many female characters considered as “strong” is that in order to be so, they’ve often had to make themselves become more like a man (Sarah Connor syndrome, if you like), taking on physical and/or emotional characteristics that enable them to play the same role as a traditional male hero. But in Fargo, although Marge is not averse to kicking ass and taking names – remember that she single-handedly brings down the brutal murderer Grimsrud with a well-placed gunshot – it’s her gender that sets her apart from everyone else in the film.

Fargo is all about the failures and incompetencies of men – men who succumb to rapacious lusts and desires (primarily for money, but let’s not forget the significance of the somewhat grim sequence in which the two kidnappers enjoy the services of a pair of bored prostitutes) – but at the centre of it all is Marge, the only truly competent person either on the side of the good or the bad. All around her are men acting or being stupid – Jerry, Carl and Graer, Lou (“I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou”), even her old high-school classmate Mike – and she just calmly gets on with doing the right thing, the right way.

In addition to the powers of deduction that make her such a great cop, Marge’s intelligence is emotional, as well. Throughout the film, she instinctively knows how to approach characters in exactly the right way – taking different tones and approaches to the extent that she never comes off the worst out of a conversation (or an interrogation). Not that there ever seems to be anything planned or cynical about this – it’s just the way she is. And if I can say this without it sounding patronising, a huge part of this is undoubtedly the fact that she’s a woman (and an expectant mother, at that), making her empathy seem all that more natural.

In this manner, Marge “kicks ass” in a far greater way than any literal instance of high-kicking or smart-mouthed sassy quips from a hundred “empowered” (yet still strangely over-sexualized) cinematic peers. And she even finds time to be the film’s philosopher, as demonstrated by this really quite profound (and spoilerfic, obviously) sequence towards the end. A superb creation in both writing and performance (the film rightly won Academy Awards for both elements – the role being the finest and most nuanced moment in the particularly exceptional career of Frances McDormand, one of the best screen actors – male or female – of the last fifty years), she may not have the complex intrigue of Annie Hall, or the sheer bloody-minded determination and will of Ripley, but Marge Gunderson is still undoubtedly one of cinema’s greatest ever women.

“Hautman’s blue-winged teal got the 29-cent. People don’t much use the three-cent.”
“Oh, for Pete’s sake. Of course they do. Whenever they raise the postage, people need the little stamps.”

… That the film gets away with foregoing any sort of traditional three-act structure is a testament to the assured, exhilarating style that’s long-since become Wright’s trademark. Despite cramming in six fights that would each serve as a commendable climax to many films in their own right, the viewer is swept along on a frantic rush of adrenaline throughout. Pausing for thought would betray that in most cases, the battles come along without anything like the build-up offered by the books – but in the moment, each is an inspired musical-style set-piece with its own inventive and unexpected resolution.

Full review up now at Film4.com. Meanwhile, James and I will be talking about the film – and the final book – in much lengthier, fanboyish and spoiler-filled detail over at Comics Daily at some point this week.

The Science of Sleep
Meant to see this for ages, as Eternal Sunshine is one of my favourite films and I adore Michel Gondry’s aesthetic. And “aesthetic” is what this is really about – it’s a dreamy, gentle trip through his own personal oddness. It’s nowhere near as sharp as anything scripted by Kaufman, but it’s got a very quiet charm to it nevertheless – helped considerably by the two leads, who make the stuttering and flawed relationship feel real despite the surrealism that surrounds it. And I spent the film finding Charlotte Gainsbourg quite attractive but not being able to figure out why.

Be Kind Rewind
This, on the other hand, was a disappointment. At the time of release I’d looked forward to it hugely, but while there are some cracking moments (largely revolving around the “sweding”) and good performances, too much of the film is lost in a bizarre and pointless subplot that simply doesn’t work, and shows even more than Science of Sleep that Gondry needs a better writer to work with than himself – he simply never comes close to establishing who the characters are, how they relate to one-another, and why we should care. Not entirely without merit, but considerably disjointed.

Adventureland
As yet another quirky and slightly melancholic sort-of-rom-com about a nerdish guy and an aloof girl, I’m not sure this quite manages to fully carve out a specific reason to exist. It doesn’t help, either, that Kristen Stewart’s character is so spectacularly unlikeable, lacking the idiosyncratic charm that these characters usually have when played by someone like Zooey Deschanel (or, er, Charlotte Gainsbourg?). Where it does work, however, is in its devastatingly accurate portrayal of long summers working at theme parks – speaking directly to my own personal experiences (three years at the now-closed Southport Pleasureland) even down to the fact that it’s specifically the games that they all work on (I even had a near-identical experience with a customer who was trying to cheat – only mine involved being spat at in the face rather than an attempted knifing). It’s generally a warm film, if a little slow, and Eisenberg is likeable – plus there’s a surprisingly strong turn from Ryan Reynolds – but aside from evoking memories of Uni summer work, it’s not the most memorable.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
This seems to have become my sister’s All Time Favourite Movie over the last year or so, and while I’d consider her enthusiasm a little excessive, I can still sort of see where she’s coming from. You wouldn’t think a documentary about thirtysomething men who devote their entire lives to beating each others’ top scores on Donkey Kong and other ’80s arcade games to be that compelling – but it is, bizarrely and magnificently so. Most of the discussion about it centres on the awe-inspiringly malevolent Billy Mitchell – and it’s true that he’s a pantomime supervillain to put Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom and the Master to shame – but my favourite aspect by far is Brian “There’s a potential Donkey Kong killscreen coming up” Kuh, a character I’d call one of the greatest comic creations of all time were it not for the simple matter of his not being fictional. The only really disappointing thing about the film is that it ends – you could happily run an ongoing TV docusoap about these guys, and it’d pretty much never get tiresome.

District 9
Took far too long to get round to seeing this, but finally caught it on Sky Box Office while at home visiting my parents. And it’s cracking, isn’t it? Probably vies with Moon as the best sci-fi film of the last few years. Thoroughly gripping, and with a brilliantly inventive and near-unique alien design, it’s perhaps a little heavy-handed in its “here’s the allegory”ness – but then, pretty much all social-commentary-sci-fi is heavy-handed with it, it’s sort of a facet of the genre. The action and visual effects are quite astonishing for a film of its budget, and Sharlto Copley is superb (even though I couldn’t help but think of this when watching his excited spiels to camera early in the film). Slightly slow to begin with but it really kicks in to become pretty darned thrilling by the end.

I Love You Philip Morris
Okay, so if you don’t like Jim Carrey, you’re not going to get on with this – but I like Jim Carrey a lot, so I thought it was terrific. Great fun, and easily his best comedy in years – but actually a surprisingly warm love story for all that, too. Features an absolutely brilliant twist (that simply seemed too ludicrous to expect – and I still refuse to believe it actually happened in real life), and a great soundtrack to boot. Just really enjoyable stuff, basically – and it offers Carrey the opportunity to do what he does best without overdoing it.

Ghost Town
I generally try and avoid doing this with discs I’ve rented, but man… I just got bored of this about halfway through, and ended up sending it back rather than spending another 45 minutes on it. It’s not terrible – the performances are decent (Gervais just doing his usual schtick, admittedly – but I don’t hate that as much as some – and Greg Kinnear is always good value), it’s just that it was dull and uninspired, and I could see exactly where it was going. And Tea Leoni is tedious, tedious, tedious. And while pleasant enough, as a comedy it would have been better served by some jokes.

Date Night
Not amazing, but a perfectly enjoyable Saturday-night-out kinda thing. Wouldn’t be anywhere near as good if not for its two stars – Steve Carell and Tina Fey, in case you didn’t know – but playing slightly more grounded versions of their famed sitcom characters they carry it effortlessly, and as a bonus spark off each other really well. Lots of nice “Oh, it’s so-and-so!” cameos, too, including an uncredited Ray Liotta and a highly amusing Mark Wahlberg.

Iron Man 2
Reviewed here and also discussed on the blog recently. Good fun, but not as good as the original, and makes me look forward to The Avengers more than to Iron Man 3, basically.

Son of Rambow
Aw, this was cute. Such a completely different sort of film from Garth Jennings’ previous effort (the Hitchhiker’s Guide movie, which – while far from perfect – I definitely liked more than some) but the similarity in directorial style is clear (as is the fact that it appeared to again be Joby Talbot doing the music). I think I expected there to be a bit more focus on (and footage of) the film being made by the kids, rather than it really being a macguffin on which to hang the story of their friendship (and, to a lesser extent, the story of his mother – Jessica Stevenson yay! – breaking free of the oppression of her religious group). And it’s really rather sweet and likeable, even if it hits all the classic “angry rebel kid meets quiet meek kid” story notes. I’m not sure the subplot of the French exchange students really works, but it makes for some amusing moments (most notably when Didier, considered impossibly cool by all the English kids, gets back on the bus at the end and is immediately pilloried as the uncool nerd). Quiet, but enjoyable – and if anything, in showing the kids’ Rambo-inspired film, it almost beats Be Kind Rewind at its own game.

Anvil! The Story of Anvil
So absolutely not what I was expecting. The comparisons to Spinal Tap (and yes, the connections are hard to shake – from the visit to Stonehenge to the bit where they talk about the first song they wrote together to the drummer named Robb Reiner) made me think this was going to be an exercise in schadenfreude, laughing at the trials and tribulations of a terrible, ageing metal band with delusions of grandeur. It’s not, though – it’s really not. It’s funny, sure – but it’s also warm, and affectionate, and uplifting. The guys themselves, particularly Lips, have an appealing, honest charm about them (most telling is the part where, in an attempt to raise the money needed to go to the UK and record a new album with Chris Tsangarides, he takes a second job at a telemarketing centre – but admits he’s terrible at it because he simply can’t lie and be rude to people) – and really, the film is just about ordinary people who know they’re quite good at something (and although I’m not a metal connoisseur, it’s clear Anvil aren’t exactly hopeless) and just want to pursue their dream of having fun with it and giving other people enjoyment. It’s not quite at King of Kong levels of genius, but it’s a very well-put together (if at times, you suspect, mildly contrived), touching and winning documentary nevertheless.

It’s all well and good giving Rhodes’ “War Machine” outfit its proper technical name from the comics at one point, or throwing in a less-than-subtle nod to Captain America, but when it’s at the expense of giving proper development to Tony and Pepper’s relationship, or adequately addressing the legitimate grievance Ivan Vanko (who, curiously, doesn’t seem to be named as Whiplash onscreen at any point) has with the Starks, the overall sense of coherency can’t help but suffer.

Full review over at Film4.

Despite the flaws, it’s still worth seeing if you’re a fan of (a) the first film, (b) Marvel Comics or (c) Scarlett Johansson in her bra. And make sure you stay until the end of the credits for the easter egg teaser scene that we DIDN’T BLOODY GET AT THE PREVIEW SCREENING.

Just don’t ask me where the “listening to every album on my iPod in order” mini-album-reviews are.*

Anyway, Stuff I’ve Watched over the past few weeks or so includes…

Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll
There are reasons to see this besides Andy Serkis, of course. The soundtrack is, as you’d expect, terrific (and if you don’t like Ian Dury and the Blockheads, you’re really not in any way qualified to comment on anything). The supporting cast are pretty much uniformly excellent. And it’s pretty good fun (though occasionally a bit dark), drenched in “I wish I were 24 Hour Party People“-styled direction. But really… it’s all about Serkis. He is nothing short of phenomenal – close your eyes and he really is Dury (particularly when singing), although to do so would ignore how well he gets the physical mannerisms, too. Anyway, it’s a very enjoyable ride, terrific at times, although it does follow standard “music biopic” style/format a lot of the time. And it’s a shame you don’t actually get “Sweet Gene Vincent” properly in full.

Annie Hall
Yes, I’m a complete and total idiot for never having seen this before. But I cherish the day it finally showed up from my Lovefilm list. What an absolutely bloody wonderful, awe-inspiringly brilliant and clever and touching and sharp film. I knew it was meant to be good, but I stupidly didn’t know quite how all the meta bits would push my buttons (“Wouldn’t it be great if real life were like this?”), and of course I’m exactly the sort of neurotic nerd that Allen’s characters in this era of his career would appeal to. For some strange reason, it reminded me of Eternal Sunshine in its approach to relationships – the basic message being “Yeah, they’re kind of rubbish and they mess you up, but they’re worth going through over and over again anyway” – and I liked that attitude a lot. Oh, and it’s very, very, very funny. Absolute masterpiece.

Blur: No Distance Left To Run
Reviewed here, so there’s not much need to repeat what I said there. But the short version is: damned near essential (if a little self-indulgent and self-satisfied) if you’re a Blur fan, and filled with lots of interesting nuggets of contemporaneous footage. And if you’re not a Blur fan… why not?

Kick-Ass
I’m not allowed to say anything about this film or my opinion of it, because it was seen for review purposes and said review is under embargo. I’m just mentioning that I saw it, and you can infer whether I thought it actually worth passing comment on. Watch the trailer, though (warning – contains teh swears), for an idea of what it’s like. And the fact that the poster has already spoilered Empire’s star rating of it is a bit of a clue, too.

Up In The Air
Enjoyed this a lot – perhaps more than I was expecting to – and it marks Jason Reitman out, after Juno and Thank You For Smoking, as a Genuine Talent. Can we have him instead of his dad going Ghostbusters 3, please? Anyway, super performances from all three of the main cast, with Clooney in particular excelling at that old-school Clooney charm of his (it’s something you either like or don’t, but I always find myself warming to him, especially in Coen films), and although it seems to lose its way a little bit in a section that at the time feels like a poor last act, it subsequently only turns out to be a third quarter after all, and the coda that follows it makes it work. What’s especially surprising is how refreshingly lacking in “Hollywood cop out” it turns to be – not in a depressing way, just in a realistic way, to the extent that there’s a surprising lack of resolution of any kind. Mega bonus points, too, for using unreleased Elliott Smith demo “Angel in the Snow” extensively at one point.

Role Models
Shhhh. Alright, I wouldn’t have paid to see this at the cinema, but it’s a perfectly justifiable Lovefilm job. A bit of an obvious and lame and predictable sort of a comedy (surprise surprise, the lame man-child-ish lead characters learn a lesson, screw up a bit, then redeem themselves! Shock horror!) on the surface, what makes this work (aside from an excellent running thread involving Kiss) is the quality of the cast – Paul Rudd, Jane Lynch and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are all typically great doing their same usual schticks, and even Seann William Scott is on the likeable side of his usual narrow Stifler-esque range. It’s a bit of fun, basically, fairly forgettable but still enjoyable while you’re watching it. Which is more than can be said for a lot of examples of its genre, to be honest.

Quantum of Solace
This seems to have divided opinion rather more than Casino Royale did, but having finally got round to catching up with it, I found myself falling firmly on the “rather liked it” side. It lacks a lot of the intrigue – and, largely, the fun – that Casino Royale had, and the plot can be a little unnecessarily oblique (also, it’s a bit uninspiring for a Bond film – ooh, the nasty men are going to corner the water market in a single country!) but it’s a pretty uncompromising battering ram of an actioner, with some strong set-pieces, and Craig continues to make the CraigNotBond people look somewhat foolish with assured performances, somehow exuding charisma even as he’s being generally icily detached throughout.

Network
Fun fact: while the line as oft-quoted tends to be “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it any more!”, when Howard Beale actually says it it’s “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this any more!” Anyway, this is a truly bizarre but utterly engaging bit of satire from that wonderful “smart cinema” era of ’70s American film. As has often been said, though, one suspects it was rather more fanciful when it was made – whereas nowadays it simply looks all that more prescient. You could almost actually imagine The Mao Tse-Tung Hour happening nowadays, which is kind of scary. And when Beale wonders what’ll happen “when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamned propaganda force in the whole godless world”, it’s hard not to think of Mr Murdoch and his gang. Anyway – cracking film, cracking cast (cor, Faye Dunaway’s character is pure evil, isn’t she?), cracking script. Weird-as-hell ending, mind.

Goodfellas
Yeah, yeah, another one I should have seen ages ago. In fact, it’s funny – I used to be accused by someone of being “obsessed with the mafia” for no apparent reason other than that “Bart the Murderer” (the first Fat Tony one) is one of my favourite Simpsons episodes. And yet I’ve never seen any of the Godfather trilogy or, until recently, the film I’d now call a challenger to The King of Comedy (yeah, I know, I’m weird like that) for Scorsese’s best. It really is quite stunningly directed, though – even when the plot moves into the less interesting ’80s, losing the seductive charm of the ’60s and ’70s-set sequences, you’ve got such bravura turns as the intensely fast-paced “paranoia” set-piece – and the combination of its visual flair and the across-the-board-brilliant performances are almost enough to make you forget just how brutal it all is. A difficult watch at times, but a rewarding experience, particularly if you’re fascinated by all of the “how it all actually worked” stuff (which I tend to be). I guess I might have to seek out Casino, now…

*the answer is that they will be back at some point. But not yet.

Speaking of writing for websites, meanwhile, I don’t think I’ve mentioned it on here, but it’s worth noting that at the start of the month we finally did the decent thing and closed down Noise to Signal. Time pressures (not to mention losing some writers) were simply the main factor in our not feeling able to keep up with it as much as we used to – and we felt that only having sporadic updates, particularly given how wide the site’s remit for subject matter was, meant it simply couldn’t establish and hold enough of a niche. We’re leaving the site’s archives open indefinitely, though, and our last article was of course a self-indulgent trip through our “best” bits. I was also sad to see, recently, that one of the main sites that inspired NTS’ creation, Off the Telly, is also closing (for the second time). One of the things that made me proudest of NTS was the fact that Graham Kibble-White was enough of a fan to include us in the “favourite blogs” sidebar, and the site (similarly staying up as an archive) is home to some of the best writing about telly on the internet (I suppose not that hard an achievement, given that there’s so little on the subject of true quality out there, but that shouldn’t be held against it).

In other news, I imagine there will be a fair few people reading this who probably have an interest in writing some Doctor Who one day… and so just in case any of those people haven’t seen Big Finish’s current new writers opportunity… well, there’s a link to it just there. I’m not sure they’re aware just how much bad fanfic they’re going to be leaving themselves open to, but… fair play to them. I’ll be interested to see what comes out of it.

Oh, and I’ve been thinking up slightly lame but (I think) amusingly nerdy t-shirt ideas recently, so I’ve decided to hell with it and started up a shop on Spreadshirt for them. The way I see it, even if everyone thinks they’re absolutely rubbish and no-one buys any, at least it doesn’t cost me anything (nor will it make me much, either, the percentage earned from each shirt sold is pretty low, but I’m not really bothered about that). But if you might be interested in shirts that slyly reference comic books and Ghostbusters and Weezer and font nerdery and Choose Your Own Adventure books and the like, then you might want to have a look.

And that’s all the weather!