*WEB CONTINUATION: This article originally appeared in Volume 105 Issue 3 of our news magazine, Amplifier.

Simon Stalenhag’s 2018 graphic novel “The Electric State” has long anticipated a film adaptation from fans. Known for its grand portrayals of Western landscapes that frame a decaying retro-futuristic America, “The Electric State” blends surrealist visuals with a somber commentary on modern technology.  

The novel is set in an alternate 1997, and it nods to 1990s-era designs and pop culture throughout the story, with period-correct brand logos, and mentions of artists like Kurt Cobain. 

The story centers around a teenage girl named Michelle and her journey to find her brother through a deserted West Coast that is still haunted by a forgotten war, with the main character traversing landscapes adorned by forsaken war machines and oppressive monolithic structures. 

Stalenhag’s original work is unique, and, while much of the visuals of futuristic technology are foreign, it still resonates with the state of modern technology and social media in a thematic regard.
The overall aesthetics are oddly empyrean at times despite portraying a decaying America. The visceral illustrations complement the portrayal of a carefully crafted dystopian world with an ever-growing reliance on technology. 

In 2017, Netflix announced its planned adaptation of The Electric State, and on March 14, 2025, it was released to audiences. The decision was made for the film to be directed by the Russo brothers, best known for their work with Marvel Studios on The Avengers, The Captain America franchise, and other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

In contrast to the novel’s bleak atmosphere and the despairing story, the film adaptation omits much of what gave the original novel its unique shine and beauty. As opposed to the original theme, allegories, and overall tone of Stalenhag’s original work, the film instead classifies itself as a sci-fi adventure comedy. 

The film has plot holes and hasty story elements that only exist to tie together what is a poorly constructed screenplay. At times, it had to explain nonsensical plot elements. As far as the main cast, the main character, Michelle, played by Millie Bobby Brown, is decently portrayed, but her character lacks complexity and personality. On the other hand, Chris Pratt’s character, who didn’t exist in the novel, is a useless addition to the story. He only exists as a comedic relief and as a means to create more character interaction in a story that originally reflected an ever-emptying world, which was quiet and relied on telling the story through visuals and implications instead of verbose dialogue lined with unoriginal quips. His character perfectly encapsulates the disregard for the source material.

This was made apparent from the trailer alone, revealing that the film’s plot, while bearing the basic premise, differentiates from the book entirely. Though it likewise chooses to tell a story of Man vs Machine, it is instead centered around a walled exclusion zone called the EX that has been erected by the government with the aim to contain robots, whose kind has been forsaken by humanity in retaliation for their uprising.

Unlike the film, the title of the book is intended to be symbolic only, and it is never acknowledged as such beyond that. It’s never stated in the novel to be a literal place like the film portrays. Instead, it’s rather a nod to the book’s overarching theme and its depiction of a society with a self-destructive dependence on Virtual Reality technology and its contribution to a gradual, silent apocalypse. 

Specifically, it refers to society’s obsession with a virtual reality (VR) program so highly addictive that its users prioritize it over their basic needs and responsibilities, causing them and society to slowly perish.  The novel commonly illustrates this with gaunt corpses still suspended in scenes of everyday life, frozen in time, still donning their VR helmets. While robots are present in the original story, they aren’t a point of commentary, and it appears that the directors and writers of the film misrepresent what the novel considered as ‘drones,’ and instead portray them as robots.

Although this may be a deliberate choice, it feels as if they didn’t bother to follow the original world-building and story, instead relying purely on aesthetics. Drones in the novel are large war automatons and machines controlled remotely by human pilots. The story behind them is nothing less than disturbing; while the Federal Army scored victories in a war decades ago with the technology, those who manned these machines lost the ability to have children, among a plethora of other medical problems.

While they exist in the adaptation, the drones only serve grandiose CGI shots in which the main cast fights off hordes of enemies. They swap the hulking weapons of war for humanoid-style analogues with oddly outdated monochrome screens for a face. We forget the representation of war in them, that violence can cost the future. Instead of lively robotic characters, the book shows their remains that lay scattered and abandoned across landscapes that have since regrown and forgotten them.

The actual film uses the basic premise from the novel’s plot, but it misses the original impact, pacing, and general mystery that captivated readers. 

The film distills the original story into a clear Good vs Evil, and in a sense, it was boringly predictable as a story. If you’ve seen other films like it, you’ll know almost exactly how the plot will unfold. 

Overall, the film on its own likely wouldn’t stand without the aesthetics of Stalenhag’s work. As far as an original story, it’s uninspired and, in a way, unintentionally parodic of other cheesy and unimaginative action flicks. 

However, there is still praise due to the film itself, as the CGI and set building are largely impressive, despite improperly scaling certain things. Additionally, there was attention to certain small details that deserve some kudos, like Michelle driving an Oldsmobile 88. 

While the film at times can be entertaining, for fans that have read the original book or filmgoers looking for a new science fiction film, The Electric State is not worth the two-hour long runtime. 

Rating: 2.5/10