I will admit to finding great amusement in the "Paul is dead" conspiracy theory, and the more "proof" that's offered up, the more hilarious I find it all.

But a comic that theoretically pulls all that stuff together and presents it to us? Sign me up and take my fucking money!

Or...not.

While this is very pretty to look at, it proves that someone who can make pretty pictures can't always necessarily lay them out in a series of pages to tell a coherent story. That's the case here. The individual Beatles' caricatures are quite well done, but Geoff Emerick, Brian Epstein, and George Martin's are not very good at all, and there were times I was attempting to muddle out if John was talking to Brian or Martin.

So, muddled characters drawn in a muddled story.

What about that story? Yeah, virtually all of the actual conspiracy stuff is completely ignored, and it presents a few hours of the Beatles (mostly John) freaking out over the news that Paul is dead, only to wrap it all up in a few pages.

It seems shocking that a creative team could take the Beatles, place them into the position of losing one of their members, and somehow make it boring, yet that's exactly what you get here.

This is not good. Save your cash. ( )

One of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories in pop culture is the one that at some point in 1966 Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash and replaced in The Beatles by a look-alike. It’s been the subject of numerous articles, books, and TV shows over the years. Where this graphic novel takes a different approach is considering the reactions of John, George & Ringo to the news of Paul’s supposed passing. Although I’m not a fan of the block, color wash style art work used here it is at times effective in conveying both shock and emotion. But that’s about it, the idea is good but generally the execution is lacking. It’s also a quick and dissatisfying read that feels as if it should be the start of a bigger story. ( )

Paul is Dead from Paolo Baron is a take on the old Paul is dead theory from back in the day. It isn't a bad story but seemed a little lacking.

I think, when using something as widely known (apologies to the self-proclaimed experts in trivia, but this is widely known if you're either into music history or if you're over 30, since there was a resurgence of Beatles stories and releases during the 90s that lasted a while) as this hoax was, you need to develop a bit more of a story around what you think of as the seed of your story. This feels like just the seed that has not yet sprouted.

The artwork moved the rating up a little, I liked the renderings of my childhood favorites. So basically you have an okay but skeletal story and good artwork. In my days teaching I would have insisted on a rewrite to flesh it out a bit more.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via Edelweiss. ( )