Two-in-One Review: Lorelei She's not a vampire, she's a succubus, and she's back from a sales-imposed hiatus to brighten up the night life for mature readers... she's Lorelei. Randy: Though Lorelei clearly has something of a history, having had five issues published in the mid-90s, I confess that this is the first time I've heard of the character. She seems to be something only the lines of Elvira or Vampirella, although the adult nature of this book has her pushing boundaries neither of those particular seductresses have before. Don: Oh, I wouldn't go that far. Lorelei may be a bit more intense in tone than Vampirella, for example, but it's in keeping with the bad-girl comics one might see from Chaos! Comics and Avatar Press. Mind you, I'm not a fan of those bad-girl books, so it doesn't bode well for Lorelei. Lorelei #1 published by Starwarp Concepts written by Steven A. Roman illustrated by Ernie Colon, Steve Geiger, David C. Matthews & Neil Vokes Don: The world's a nasty place... pedophiles, secret cults and dirty old men are plentiful. Fortunately, there's a supernatural vixen who wanders the world, seeking to punish the wicked. She's Lorelei. She's sexy, she's a succubus, and she sucks... out your soul. Oh, and a stripper and an erotic photographer find themselves the target of a nefarious cult. Randy: I have to admit that I was a bit turned off of Lorelei just by the cover and the promo material, which seemed to promise little more than softcore porn trying to be horror. Unfortunately, after reading the issue, my reaction wasn't much different. Lorelei is everything that I don't miss about the 1990s, with sexist art and attitudes, grim and gritty style without any substance to back it up and a generally mediocre quality. I'm afraid that this book lands pretty squarely in the "not for me" camp. Don: Though this type of comic book was far more prevalent in the 1990s, it's far from a dying genre. Chaos! has a loyal audience, and Jim Balent is releasing his own big-breasted, bad-girl books under the Broadsword banner (The Fourth Rail... now with 50 per cent more alliteration!). Hell, Sirius not only solicited a title featuring a buxom heroine named Banzai (clad in a Catholic schoolgirl's outfit no less... subtle), but Banzai panties as well. In other words, there's an audience for this kind of over-the-top heroine, and Lorelei will be of interest to those folks. Mind you, I found a fair bit of the exaggerated sexuality to be laughable, to be honest. For example, in the world of Lorelei it's always chillingly cold, if the characters' nipples are any indication. Randy: This particular issue is divided into three parts. There are the brief features, including a somewhat self-indulgent text piece about the history of Lorelei and a one-page strip that is near pornographic and purports to be the origin of succubi. There is the first chapter of a new story, which reads like a Charles Bronson movie if Charles Bronson were replaced by a porn star, and there is the beginning of a reprint of Lorelei's origin, which seems little more than an excuse to delve into the lives of strippers and nude photographers. In his editorials, Roman mentions influences like Creepy and Vampirella, but this seems a little sleazier in approach than those magazines. The horror appears to be an afterthought, while the main driving force is showing the heroine and various other women topless and as sex objects, while the men are little more than leering jerks. Don: Well, titillation and horror have gone hand-in-hand for some time, and not just in comics. Lorelei smacks of B-movie scream-queen flicks. Again, not my thing. Actually, my biggest problem with Lorelei #1 isn't its softcore sensibility, but the fact that the creators don't seem to tell a story. We're given snippets of separate stories, it would seem, and none of it links together, at least not here. The use of several different artists reinforces that disjointed, incomplete quality. Randy: I'm certainly okay with an adult sensibility, but I just don't have much interest in comics that offer up more skin than story, and that's what the artists on Lorelei provide. I've seen fewer breasts exposed between the covers of Playboy, and I've seen more believable characterization of women in the pages of Maxim. The lead character herself is meant to be some kind of avenger of the night, feeding on pedophiles or rapists, but the simplicity of the plots and the clunky dialogue don't really sell that story. In fact, we spend as many pages on a sequence of a stripper doing her act as we do on Lorelei stalking the night, and the balance of sex versus horror is tilted pretty heavily toward the former. Don: To be fair, I think that's what the creators have set out to do. We don't care for it, but the book does have a certain professional polish to it. It could be a lot cleaner, sure, but it's not exactly amateurish either. A number of mainstream, pro comics artists contribute here, and one can't fault Starwarp's recruitment efforts. Randy: Usually, I can find something to like about any small press project, and I have to admit that the affection that Roman has for his property makes it hard to admit how much I disliked it... it's sort of like telling someone their baby is ugly. But I'm afraid that as far as I'm concerned, regardless of her obvious physical charms, Lorelei is one ugly baby. Don: An ugly baby with big bazooms. Don't forget the bazooms. Email Randy and Don comments about this review, or discuss it on the Fourth Rail message board.