Stephen King has written a lot of scary stuff, but nothing seems to scare him quite as much as his own book, Rage. Or, more specifically, what people did after reading it. This is why the Rage 2007 film—an adaptation of that very story—is such a bizarre, ghost-like artifact in cinema history. If you go looking for it on Netflix or Max, you’re going to strike out. It isn't there. It isn't on Blu-ray either.
Honestly, the story behind why this movie exists (and why it barely exists at the same time) is arguably more intense than the plot itself.
To understand the 2007 film, which was actually titled Getting Away with It in some circles but is widely known by the book’s title among fans, you have to look at the source material. King wrote Rage under his Richard Bachman pseudonym while he was still a student in the late 1960s. It’s a raw, ugly story about a high school student named Charlie Decker who kills two teachers and holds his classroom hostage. But it isn't a slasher. It’s a psychological pressure cooker where the hostages eventually start sympathizing with the gunman.
Then real life started mimicking the fiction.
By the late 90s, several school shooters were found with copies of the book. One student in Kentucky specifically cited it. King, rightfully horrified, asked his publishers to pull the book from print forever. He basically nuked his own work from orbit. So, when a low-budget independent adaptation surfaced around 2007, it wasn't just a movie. It was a lightning rod for a controversy that had been simmering for decades.
The Viral Mystery of the Rage 2007 Film
People get confused about this one. A lot.
Some folks think there’s a big-budget Hollywood version starring a young A-lister hiding in a vault somewhere. There isn't. The Rage 2007 film was a gritty, independent production directed by Chris Soth. It was a labor of love (or perhaps obsession) that tried to capture that claustrophobic, 1970s nihilism that King originally put on the page.
It’s short. It’s mean. It feels like something you shouldn't be watching.
🔗 Read more: Love Island UK Who Is Still Together: The Reality of Romance After the Villa
The film sticks remarkably close to the Bachman narrative. We see the protagonist, Charlie, descending into a mental breakdown that feels agonizingly slow and then violent all at once. Because it was an indie project, it lacked the polished "glamour" of violence we see in modern thrillers. That made it feel more like a documentary, which, given the subject matter, made people incredibly uncomfortable.
The 2007 release didn't get a red carpet. It didn't get a 3,000-screen rollout. It drifted through the underground festival circuit and lived in the corners of the early internet. This was the era of LimeWire and early YouTube, where grainy clips would surface and then vanish. It became an urban legend for film buffs who wanted to see the "forbidden King story."
Why it never went mainstream
Money usually talks in Hollywood, but fear talks louder.
No major distributor wanted to touch a story about a school shooting in the mid-2000s. We were living in a post-Columbine world where the wounds were still fresh and the cultural conversation was hyper-sensitive to "copycat" media. Even though the film tried to frame the story as a psychological character study rather than an endorsement of violence, the optics were a nightmare.
Distribution deals fell through. Legal threats regarding the rights to the Bachman name swirled. King’s own stance on the book made any adaptation a moral minefield. If the author himself thinks the story is too dangerous to be on library shelves, how does a studio justify putting it in theaters? They couldn't.
What the Movie Actually Gets Right (and Wrong)
If you manage to track down a copy of the Rage 2007 film, the first thing you’ll notice is the sweat.
The movie is set almost entirely in one classroom. It’s hot. The actors look miserable. This is where the film actually succeeds as a piece of art. It captures the "Stockholm Syndrome" vibe of the book perfectly. The students don't just sit there in terror; they start arguing. They start revealing their own dark secrets.
💡 You might also like: Gwendoline Butler Dead in a Row: Why This 1957 Mystery Still Packs a Punch
Charlie Decker, played with a twitchy, hollow-eyed intensity, isn't portrayed as a hero. He's a broken kid who did something unforgivable. However, the film struggles with the ending. In the book, the ending is a haunting, quiet dissolution of order. On screen, it’s hard to make that land without feeling melodramatic.
Some critics who saw the early screenings argued that the film leaned too hard into the "misunderstood loner" trope. That’s the danger of Rage. It walks a razor-thin line between empathy and glorification. Most people feel the 2007 version slipped off that line a few times.
The Legal Limbo and the "Bachman" Curse
You can’t talk about this movie without talking about the Richard Bachman legacy.
When King "killed off" Bachman after being outed as the real author, he wanted to see if his success was due to talent or just his name. Rage was the first Bachman book. It’s the skeleton in the closet. Because the rights to the Bachman books are handled differently than the main King bibliography, the Rage 2007 film ended up in a weird legal gray area.
There are rumors—unconfirmed, but persistent—that King’s legal team has been active in ensuring the film doesn't see a wide digital re-release. It’s not about the money. It’s about the legacy of the tragedy associated with the story.
Is it a "lost film"? Sorta. It exists in the hands of collectors and on certain private trackers. But for the general public, it’s essentially been erased from the timeline.
Why we are still talking about it in 2026
We live in an age of archives. Everything is supposed to be available at the click of a button. When something isn't available, it gains a dark sort of magnetism.
📖 Related: Why ASAP Rocky F kin Problems Still Runs the Club Over a Decade Later
The Rage 2007 film is the ultimate "forbidden" fruit for horror and thriller fans. It represents a time when cinema was still allowed to be dangerous, even if that danger was deemed too high a price for society to pay. It also serves as a case study in authorial intent vs. public impact.
King’s decision to pull the book was an act of conscience. The film’s disappearance is a byproduct of that conscience.
Finding the Truth Behind the Legend
If you're looking for this movie because you’re a King completist, you’ve got a long road ahead of you. You won't find it on Amazon.
The best way to experience the story now isn't through the film at all, but through the original Bachman Books anthology—if you can find an old copy at a garage sale. The newer editions have scrubbed Rage entirely, replacing it with other stories. This has made the 2007 film even more of a curiosity. It’s the only visual record we have of a story that has been officially "cancelled" by its own creator.
Practical steps for the curious:
- Search for "Getting Away with It" (2007): This was the alternate title used during its brief festival run. You're more likely to find production notes and cast interviews under this name.
- Check Specialty Archives: Sites like the Internet Archive sometimes have user-uploaded clips or reviews from the era that provide more context on the film’s tone.
- Read "Guns" by Stephen King: This is a non-fiction essay King wrote explaining exactly why he pulled Rage from the market. It provides the essential moral context for why the 2007 film was doomed from the start.
- Avoid "Scam" Downloads: Because this is a rare film, many sites claim to have it but are just phishing for data. If it isn't a known physical media or a reputable archive, don't click it.
The Rage 2007 film isn't just a movie; it's a ghost. It's a reminder that sometimes, the things we create take on a life of their own, for better or—in this case—much, much worse.