I was scanning a bit about him, but it seems like there's a lot of myths, propaganda, and snark concerning him and his actions as a ruler.
In the context of his time, was he particularly brutal compared to his contemporaries? Are some of the stories pure propaganda due to how he treated the boyars? How effective was he as a ruler and leader?
As I understand it, history tries to avoid assigning any kind of hero/villain status to a figure, so is there a historical consensus on the kind of person Vlad was and what's the truth about his brutality?
Whether there is a consensus exists on the community you asking the question. There exists a Vlad for the English language majors, a Vlad for the vampirologists, a Vlad for Hungarians, a Vlad for Romanians, a Vlad for Germans, a Vlad for Turks, ... So, in my opinion, there is no overall consensus view. There are also surprisingly few actual historians who have worked on the topic. Given that the sources are in multiple and difficult languages, only a real international cooperative research project could try to tackle the question. Eastern European medieval history is both underfunded and a nationalistic mine-field (with medieval persons as building blocks for newly constructed national histories - putting persons in a wider, regional context hurts these national constructs and is thus often not welcome).
Back to the question. As the list of Princes of Wallachia shows, usual reigns were short and bloody. With two huge neighbors, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, as well as unruly local noblemen/land owners and independent-minded German merchant cities in Transylvania, a Prince of Wallachia had to keenly balance these interests to stay in power. Only in his second reign did Vlad actually manage to stay in power for a longer period.
Regarding the brutality, this was Eastern Europe, aptly called the "bloodlands". Adding the religious dimension, rulers were using violence as a regular political tool both against internal and external rivals and enemies. Vlad thus was part of a violent environment. Still, I wouldn't go so far, as many post-modern authors want and exonerate Vlad and say that his reputation was due to a bad (foreign) press. Vlad seems to have used (and celebrated) shocking acts of violence to quickly subdue his enemies into submission/retreat, as he lacked the strength and power for a less lethal approach. So in my view, Vlad's reputation is quite justified - though not in the numbers depicted in current films/comics. Eastern Europe has and still does suffer from under-population. There just weren't enough bodies available for slaughtering thousands.
Most English language books about Vlad suffer from the problem of being either too nationalistic (especially Romanian) or too unfamiliar with the local history and the different languages and sources. The best and short current book about Vlad is the German booklet (similar to Oxford's Very Short Introductions series): Heiko Haumann: Dracula: Leben und Legende, 128 pages, C.H.Beck: München 2011. ISBN 9783406612145