front page  ·  comicbook reviews  ·  interviews  ·  comics  ·  merchandise  ·  contact us  ·  newsfeed: rss xml

There are lots of things to like about Dracula vs. King Arthur #1. First, how can you not like 38 pages of story (with no advertisements interrupting) for just $2.95? Second, the brothers Beranek create an intriguing opening, paralleling the vastly different fortunes of the kingdoms of Arthur, King of Camelot, and Vlad Dracul, Prince of Wallachia. Third, the story hangs on to the basic tropes of any Arthur or Dracula story but breathes a newness into them by playing the two archetypes against one another.

The depiction of Mordred as angry, slovenly and somewhat dim is a nice touch.

In the late 15th century, Vlad Dracul is in hopeless state: his wife has committed suicide and his brother has betrayed him to an army of Turks. With his kingdom crumbling around him, Lucifer seduces Dracul with promises of vengeance against an uncaring God by destroying Arthur and Camelot. To destroy Arthur’s kingdom, Lucifer sends Dracula (now renamed) into the past, imbuing him with the powers of darkness that can be harnessed only through the consumption of human blood.

Arthur, warned in a dream of impending danger, sets out on his quest for the Holy Grail, determined to keep it from whatever evil has stirred. He sets Lancelot to stand watch over Camelot in his absence, but Merlin (presented here as a dirty witch-doctor-looking type rather than the Gandalf-clone seen so often) remains to watch Lancelot, distrustful of the pure and holy knight’s true nature.

There is a great deal of setting up to cover here, so the story stops before anything happens to bring Dracula and King Arthur within each other’s orbits. I hope that is a function of this being the first issue and not a modus operandi: in a book called Dracula vs. King Arthur, I’d like to see Dracula and King Arthur square off at least once before the obligatory big battle at the series’ end.

The beginning of Dracula’s story also seems inconsistent. Lucifer’s play on Dracula’s feelings of betrayal and hopelessness is compelling, but his reasons for going to Lucifer in the first place are unclear. Also, it is not made clear why Lucifer wants Camelot and Arthur destroyed exactly. And why pluck Dracula out of the future to do it? Is there no one else he could have turned into a vampire and run out against Arthur? These issues beg the question of the whole series, but they are important and deserve answers.

The art is suitably dark and brooding for Dracula’s encounter with Lucifer, but I don’t think there is enough contrast with the comparative joy and sunny-ness that one associates with Camelot. Dracula’s first “bite” is an appropriately bloody mess, and the depiction of Mordred as angry, slovenly and somewhat dim is a nice touch.

All told, the story is unique and plays to the dramatic potency of these mythic tales effectively without being campy. My questions about the story aside, it is interesting enough to make readers want to check out the second installment — though they will lose patience if the tale’s pacing does not pick up.