Review: 100 Bullets Vol. 6 – Six Feet Under the Gun


“You were wronged. Now you have the chance to get even… if you want it.” — Agent Graves

After the bandaged faces, missing memories, and private-eye trouble of The Counterfifth Detective, Six Feet Under the Gun takes a different approach. Rather than follow one unlucky character through a sustained mystery, Brian Azzarello and Eduardo Risso check in with several familiar faces. Collecting issues #37–42, this sixth volume offers six stand-alone chapters while the conflict surrounding Graves, Shepherd, and the Trust keeps getting uglier. It sounds like a breather, but in 100 Bullets, catching your breath usually means somebody has stopped choking you long enough to ask a question.

The key word here is transition, though that makes the collection sound less entertaining than it actually is. This is not simply six issues of people waiting for the next big storyline. Azzarello uses the shorter format to examine what these characters have become and how poorly their old lives fit them now. The larger conspiracy matters, but the best material comes from smaller encounters: visiting a neighborhood, approaching an abandoned relationship, or discovering that going back does not necessarily mean going home.

Dizzy Cordova’s return to her Chicago neighborhood gives the volume an immediate emotional connection to the beginning of the series. She was our introduction to Graves’s offer, and revisiting her old surroundings provides a useful measure of how far things have moved. The interesting question is no longer simply whether she will take revenge. It is whether the person who accepted that opportunity can still belong to the life she left behind. Familiar streets do not offer much comfort when you have become unfamiliar to yourself.

That is a smart direction for the series because it keeps Dizzy from becoming just another recruit in somebody else’s secret war. Her background matters. So do the people and places that existed before Graves arrived with his briefcase. The visit makes the conspiracy feel less abstract: whatever Graves and Shepherd are building, it involves pulling people away from recognizable lives. Dizzy’s chapter works because the cost is there without requiring another long explanation of the Trust’s history.

Cole Burns’s visit to the girlfriend he deserted offers another variation on that same discomfort. There is something inherently awkward about a dangerous professional trying to reconnect with an ordinary relationship. Being good at surviving the world of the Minutemen does not mean being equipped to explain yourself to somebody you hurt. This is where the shorter chapters earn their place. Azzarello can let a personal encounter carry the weight instead of immediately burying it beneath another elaborate conspiracy reveal.

The collection also keeps the powerful characters in view. The Medici material connects family privilege with the uglier business of maintaining authority, while Graves and Shepherd become more revealing without becoming easy to trust. Shepherd is particularly effective because competence has never been his problem; understanding what he actually wants is another matter. These chapters give the political maneuvering more definition, but thankfully nobody suddenly delivers a convenient speech explaining everything. The answers make the relationships more dangerous, not more comfortable.

Lono, meanwhile, remains the kind of presence who makes a scene feel unsafe before anything has happened. His established brutality gives him an immediate advantage over the other characters, and over the reader: you expect him to make things worse. Spending more time around him helps balance the quieter material. Where a reunion can generate tension through hesitation, Lono generates it through the possibility that hesitation will not be allowed. The book needs both kinds of menace to keep its separate chapters from feeling interchangeable.

One of the collection’s strongest ideas is that the people outside the conspiracy still matter. A chapter involving a couple witnessing an accident becomes a nasty little sequence of changing expectations and consequences. It brings the series back toward the compact morality tales that made its original premise so effective. You do not need to control a criminal dynasty to make a disastrous decision. Sometimes an unexpected opportunity is enough, especially when desperation starts disguising itself as good luck.

The downside is that Six Feet Under the Gun assumes you have been paying attention. A returning character can carry an entire chapter, but only if you remember why that person matters. Readers coming straight from Milo Garret’s more concentrated story may find this collection scattered. That is a fair complaint. The book trades sustained momentum for a wider view, and some encounters feel more like preparation than payoff. It is an effective installment, but not a particularly sensible place to start the series.

Risso is what makes those changes in focus feel natural. His economical drawing gives each character a distinct presence, while the bars, streets, and worn-down surroundings keep the book grounded in something dirtier than conspiracy diagrams. Patricia Mulvihill’s coloring deserves credit, too. Working around Risso’s heavy blacks, she gives the scenes atmosphere without fighting the drawing. The result is stylish without looking clean, which is exactly right for a story where even a quiet conversation seems to leave a stain.

100 Bullets Vol. 6: Six Feet Under the Gun is less about delivering one big knockout than reminding us how many people are standing within punching distance. Its separate stories deepen relationships, revisit unfinished business, and make the coming conflict feel personal rather than merely complicated. The structure occasionally slows the forward drive, but the character work earns that pause. Azzarello and Risso make checking in feel threatening, funny, and uncomfortable. By now, even a visit to an old girlfriend can feel like walking into an ambush.

100 Bullets Volume Reviews

Join #MondayMania For Fatal Defense!


Hi, everyone!  Tonight, on twitter, I will be hosting one of my favorite films for #MondayMania!  Join us for 2017’s Fatal Defense!

You can find the movie on Prime and then you can join us on twitter at 9 pm central time!  (That’s 10 pm for you folks on the East Coast.)  See you then!

Scene That I Love: Jordan Tells Off Big Government In The Wolf Of Wall Street


In this scene from 2013’s The Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) hosts a meeting with two federal agents on his yacht.  Jordan knows that the agents want to put him in prison but that they don’t have enough evidence as of yet.  The main agent (played by Kyle Chandler) knows that Jordan’s arrogance is his greatest weakness.

This scene, with its faux friendly banter and it’s iconic shot of Jordan throwing money to the wind, is one of Scorsese’s best “confrontation” scenes.  DiCaprio and Chandler perfectly play the two adversaries.  Jordan knows that the agent is determined to catch him but Jordan also knows the agent will never be rich and there’s no way Jordan’s not going to remind him of that every chance that he gets.  The passive aggressiveness of it all is truly a wonder to watch and, in its way, just as intimidating as the conversations between the gangsters who populate many of Martin Scorsese’s other films.

Of course, with the election tomorrow and the party of big, intrusive government projected to make big gains, I also can’t help but enjoy watching a government agent being spoken too with unapologetic disrespect.

From The Wolf of Wall Street:

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Luchino Visconti Edition


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

The great Italian director Luchino Visconti was born 120 years ago today.  It’s time for….

4 Shots From 4 Luchino Visconti Films

Le Notti Bianche (1957, dir by Luchino Visconti, DP: Giuseppe Rotunno)

The Leopard (1963, dir by Luchino Visconti, DP: Giuseppe Rotunno)

The Damned (1969, dir by Luchino Visconti, DP: Armando Nannuzzi and Pasqualino De Santis)

Death in Venice (1971, dir by Luchino Visconti, DP: Pasqualino De Santis)

 

Monday Live Tweet Alert: Join Us for Silent Trigger!


As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in hosting a few weekly live tweets on twitter and occasionally Mastodon.  I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of Mastodon’s #MondayActionMovie!  Every week, we get together.  We watch a movie.  We snark our way through it.

Tonight, for #MondayActionMovie, the film will be 1996’s Silent Trigger!

If you want to join this watch party, just hop onto Mastodon, pull up Silent Trigger on YouTube, start the movie at 8 pm et, and use the #MondayActionMovie hashtag!

Enjoy!

Thoughts On The Culture — 11/2/2026


Halloween this year? It was fun! The Scary Social Double Feature was a hit. My sister and I had a few trick-or-treaters, though nowhere near as many as we had in the pre-COVID days. The neighborhood dads seemed to brighten up whenever the cry of “Trick or treat!” caused the door to be opened by a cheerful neighbor in an old-school Playboy bunny costume. Enjoy Halloween while you can. If the socialist morons ever get into power, I imagine we’ll hear a lot about how it’s disloyal to get your candy from individuals as opposed to depending on the government for it.

(And you know government treats are going to be the worst!)

The Silence

Wow, it sure is quiet around here.

It always takes a week or two for me to recover from the tsunami of activity that is Horrorthon. For the entire month of October, this site is all about horror. This year, we had a record-setting 783 posts and we also set a record for page views. That means that we had an average of 25 posts a day. That also means that, every day, I was not only watching movies and writing posts but I was also checking and re-checking the schedule to make sure that we didn’t have any posts accidentally scheduled to drop at the same time. It was a lot, but it was satisfying to watch as the TSL writers came together to shape October.

And now, suddenly, it’s November and things are much calmer and I no longer have to check the schedule every hour. It’s going to take a while to adjust, but it’s totally worth it.

“Don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.” — P.J. O’Rourke

Tomorrow is Election Day, which means that we’re being bombarded by the get-out-the-vote evangelists. “Bring some water, bring a friend, bring something to snack on, this is the most important election of our lifetime, blah blah blah.” It’s the same crap that we hear every year. The truth of the matter is that one of the great things about America is that you don’t have to vote if you don’t want to. If there isn’t a candidate running who you feel like supporting, you’re not required to choose the “lesser of two evils,” no matter how much people try to tell you differently. Indeed, when a state like Maine first nominates a guy with a Nazi tattoo and then replaces him with some barely literate dumbass who married his own cousin, I think it’s offensive to expect voters to just grin and bear it.

Indeed, this has been a year of terrible candidates, many of whom are a bit on the seamy side. In Maine, they had Graham Platner and now they have Troy Jackson, and the amazing thing is that it could have been worse as there was a movement to draft Ms. Rachel as Platner’s replacement. In Michigan, a five-foot anti-Semite apparently has even odds of getting elected. The state of Alaska is determined to destroy itself with its stupid ranked-choice voting system. Meanwhile, in my beloved state of Texas, I’m being told that I have to pick between a corrupt career politician and an annoying little twerp who gives off creepy youth-minister vibes. (Whoever thought that the perfect closing message in the Senate campaign would be a commercial of James Talarico looking like an automated mannequin in Wrangler jeans deserves to be run out of politics.)

I gave serious thought to not participating this year, but that would mean giving up my voting streak. Plus, I have one friend who has been really obnoxious with all of her political nonsense this year, so I’m planning on voting the opposite of her so that I can cancel out her ballot. That said, I’m not going to tell you to vote. I’m going to tell you to make up your mind and do what you feel is right for you.

Go see a movie, no matter what you do

Going to the movies is a part of my Election Day ritual and I recommend it to everyone. After the icky business of voting, it’s nice to escape into fantasy for an hour or two. Even if you don’t vote, watch a movie!

Now that I about it….

It has been a while since I’ve watched The Godfather.

Music Video Of The Day: What’s The Frequency, Kenneth? by R.E.M. (1994, directed by Peter Care)


On October 4th, 1986, CBS News anchor Dan Rather was attacked on the streets of New York by a man who, as he pummeled Rather, repeatedly shouted, “Kenneth, what is the frequency?!”  When a doorman intervened to protect Rather, the man took off running.  (Some accounts say that there were actually two men attacking Rather.)

Though he wouldn’t be identified for another 11 years, the attacker’s name was William Tager.  Tager believed that the television networks were beaming signals into his brain.  In 1994, he killed a stagehand while trying to force his way into NBC studios.  In 1997, while Tager was serving a 25-year prison sentence, he was identified as the man who had attacked Rather.  Tager was subsequently paroled in 2010.

The same year that Tager was arrested, R.E.M. released a song called What’s The Frequency, Kenneth?  Though the song was clearly inspired by the attack on Rather, lead singer Michael Stipe has also said that the song was about an older man trying to understand the younger generation.

The video for What’s The Frequency, Kenneth? was directed by frequent R.E.M. collaborator Peter Care and features the band performing the song.  The jacket worn by bassist Mike Mills once belonged to the legendary Gram Parsons.

Rumors that R.E.M. stands for “Rather’s Ear Muffs” were once popular but have been denied by the band.  Instead, Michael Stipe selected the name after randomly coming across “Rapid Eye Movement” in the dictionary.

Film Review: Blind Fury (dir. by Phillip Noyce)


“Oh, nice guy, I hope. Everybody’s trying to kill me lately.” — Nick Parker

Rutger Hauer’s smile does almost as much work as his sword in Blind Fury (1989). It gives this cheerfully far-fetched action movie something that an elaborate fight sequence cannot supply on its own: a reason to enjoy hanging around its hero. Directed by Phillip Noyce, the film mixes bloody confrontations, broad comedy, and an unlikely friendship without always finding a comfortable balance. Yet Hauer moves through it with such relaxed charisma that the rough patches rarely become deal breakers. The story may be about getting a child out of danger, but the movie’s real attraction is watching an unconventional action star make an outrageous character feel strangely approachable.

Hauer plays Nick Parker, a Vietnam veteran blinded during the war and rescued by villagers who teach him to fight using his remaining senses. Years later, he sets out to find his old army buddy Frank Deveraux, played by Terry O’Quinn. Instead of a happy reunion, Nick discovers that Frank is mixed up with criminals and that his son Billy, played by Brandon Call, is in danger. After Billy’s mother is killed, Nick takes the boy under his protection. Their journey supplies the film with its basic rhythm: uneasy bonding, trouble, swordplay, and another stretch of uneasy bonding.

The film is an English-language remake of Zatoichi Challenged, the 17th entry in the long-running Japanese film series about the blind swordsman. Rather than simply borrowing a distinctive fighting gimmick, Blind Fury carries over the appeal of a capable outsider whom people consistently misjudge. Nick’s walking stick conceals a sword, but his friendly manner disguises his abilities just as effectively. Putting that figure into an American crime adventure creates an entertaining clash of styles. The gangsters belong to a familiar world of threats and brute force; Nick seems to have wandered in from a different kind of movie altogether.

Hauer makes that difference work by resisting the obvious tough-guy approach. Nick does not spend every quiet moment looking tortured or every confrontation trying to sound intimidating. He jokes, listens, and occasionally seems genuinely amused by the people around him. There is sadness beneath that warmth, but Hauer lets it register without demanding that the whole film stop and acknowledge it. His performance gives Nick a life beyond his usefulness in a fight. That matters because a character built entirely around extraordinary abilities can become dull surprisingly quickly. Here, the abilities are entertaining, but the person using them is usually more interesting.

The action follows the same principle: personality matters more than plausibility. Nick’s awareness of his surroundings is precise enough to make the premise work, and the film does not invite much scrutiny of the mechanics. Instead, Noyce builds sequences around timing, misplaced confidence, and sudden reversals. Someone decides Nick is helpless, moves in too close, and receives an unpleasant correction. The fights are often structured like physical punch lines, with a brief pause before the payoff. That playful quality keeps the swordplay from becoming monotonous, even when the outcome is obvious. We know Nick will handle the situation; the fun lies in how.

The villains give him plenty to handle, although they are more colorful obstacles than fully developed characters. Noble Willingham brings blustering nastiness to crime boss MacCready, while Randall “Tex” Cobb gives Slag an imposing presence. Their broadness suits a film that has little interest in subtle criminal psychology. They threaten, scheme, and underestimate their opponent, giving Hauer room to remain comparatively understated. The contrast is useful: Nick does not need to compete with their volume to control a scene. Still, the criminal plot itself is not especially compelling, and whenever the film spends too long explaining its machinery, the energy starts to sag.

The relationship with Billy is more important and more uneven. Their partnership brings out Nick’s patience and gives the journey something warmer than a string of violent encounters. But Billy’s resistance can feel like a screenplay requirement rather than a fresh observation about a frightened child. The movie needs them to clash before they connect, and sometimes you can see that calculation too clearly. Its handling of grief is similarly hurried. A devastating event becomes the starting point for an adventure that frequently wants to be breezy. Hauer helps bridge those gaps, though he cannot entirely erase the awkwardness.

That uneven tone is the film’s biggest limitation. Blind Fury wants its violence to sting, its jokes to land lightly, and its central relationship to carry genuine feeling, sometimes within the same scene. Not every transition works. Its fantasy of blindness also belongs firmly to action-movie invention rather than a grounded portrayal of disability. But the film remains enjoyable because it rarely becomes self-important about any of this. Noyce generally keeps the story moving, and Hauer gives its competing moods a common center. Even when the writing shifts gears abruptly, Nick still feels like the same person.

For a movie built around a concealed weapon, Blind Fury is surprisingly dependent on what its leading man leaves out in the open. Hauer’s humor, gentleness, and easy confidence make the familiar plot worth following and the ridiculous action worth accepting. A more generic performance might have left nothing but a novelty premise and a pile of defeated henchmen. Instead, there is a character whose company makes the journey enjoyable. The film is scruffy, sometimes clumsy, and never particularly deep, but it has the good sense to trust its star. Long after the plot details fade, that smile still does the trick.

Late Night Retro Television Review: Degrassi: The Next Generation 3.17 “Don’t Dream It’s Over”


Welcome to Late Night Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Sunday, I will be reviewing the Canadian series, Degrassi: The Next Generation, which aired from 2001 to 2015!  The series can be streamed on YouTube and Tubi.

This week, Terri hits her head.

Episode 3.17 “Don’t Dream It’s Over”

(Dir by Allan Eastman, originally aired on February 23rd, 2004)

Ellie and Sean are dating! The only problem is that Ellie has only had one previous relationship and that was Marco, who was just using her to try to keep people from realizing that he was gay. Even though Ellie really has every right to be pissed off with Marco (and Marco, over the past few episodes, has gotten pretty self-righteous and whiny), she still brings him along on her first movie date with Sean. As you can imagine, it’s kind of awkward. That said, Sean also invited Jay and Alex to tag along with him and it’s not like Ellie has anything in common with the two of them. Both Sean and Ellie need to ditch their friends and just learn how to spend time alone with each other.

Anyway, eventually, Marco tells Ellie that he’s tired of being her “security blanket” and that Sean could be really good for her if she’s willing to let down her defenses. Ellie apologizes to Sean for not being “a very good girlfriend” but then adds, “But you haven’t been a very good boyfriend either.” Sean replies that he doesn’t hate Marco but “I’m dating you.” He and Ellie reconcile. Awwwww! They’re such a sweet couple! I’ve never forgiven Degrassi for not keeping them together. But we’ll get to that during season 4.

Ellie and Sean are just the B-plot for this episode. The main plot features Terri and Rick Murray. Remember how Terri swore that, after Rick hit her multiple times, she would never forgive him or take him back? Well, it turns out that was a lie. Rick turns on his nerdy charm and says that he’s been getting therapy and Terri takes him back. Before taking Rick back, Terri was the only one of her friends who was still single. Now, she has a boyfriend but her friends are angry at her. During a weekend road trip, Paige tells Terri that Rick is a psycho. Rick overhears and gets angry. When Rick runs off, Paige yells at Terri to follow him if she likes him so much. Terri does that and discovers that Rick has run off to a field that, for some reason, is full of cinderblocks. Rick is yelling and screaming. Terri tells him to calm down. Rick shoves Terri and Terri falls to the ground and her head hits a cinderblock.

As a result, Terri ends up in a coma. Paige and Spinner blame themselves, with Spinner worrying that he’s going to be abusive, just like Rick. Rick withdraws from school but, as every Degrassi viewer knows, he will return in Season 4. However, Terri will not. This was Terri’s next-to-last appearance on Degrassi. Apparently, the actress who played Terri wanted to focus on her modeling career so the show’s writers put her in a coma. Yikes!

This is not a bad episode. I love Ellie/Sean as a couple and Ephraim Ellis gave a strong performance as Rick quickly switched from being sweet and nerdy to angry and dangerous. The most interesting thing about this episode is how it set up almost all of the major Season 4 storylines, from Rick’s return to Sean’s breakdown to Ellie’s growing confidence.

Next week: it’s the battle of the bands as Craig and Ashley go to war!