Please don't spend money on this.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Joseph(Vincent Rottiers) is constantly running away from one children's home to the next with his non verbal, autistic sister, Chloe(Adele Haenel) who cannot stand to be touched by anyone. Only her brother is able to reach her, and she follows him as would a trained dog. With every escape the pair search for their childhood house, with false memories of a normal home life. They were actually abandoned by their mother at an early age. The two are caught once again and Chloe begins to improve with the help of a caring worker at the facility they are living at. Joseph resents the fact that his sister no longer needs him and becomes a thief and hooks up with Karim, another troubled boy. The three children make another getaway and find a house Chloe believes is their childhood residence. They rob the place and Joey burns it down, leading to more problems with the law, which are dealt with in an interesting manner. Les Diables is depressing but very realistic, and the two leads are extremely talented. They alone, are worth the price of admission.

After viewing this film, I found the script to be overly ambitious. Autism, failing child protection, child sexuality, incest, self-mutilation, child abandonment, suicide, child imprisonment, child gangs,... director Christophe Ruggia chose to stuff his script with a wide range of social issues. In my view too much for a film of 105 minutes, leaving me wondering occasionally which point the film was trying to make. I was left with the feeling that 'something' was missing. For instance: the transition of Chloé (Adele Haenel) from being aphephobic to the most huggable person in the world, happened so fast that it was almost incredible.The movie is highly advisable though. The cinematography of Eric Guichard is excellent, Vincent Rottiers makes an amazing debut and all in all the film will grab your attention from beginning to end. But above all, Christophe Ruggia dares to tackle very controversial subject, not by subtle suggestion, as is the norm nowadays, but by clearly showing what it's all about.

Usually, when I'm overwhelmed by a film, I'll give it 10; when I'm offended, I'll give it 1. As for this one, I was neither, so I rather gave it a mediocre mark.While the users with excellent comments are overwhelmed by the tight plot, beautiful cinematography and incredible acting, others are offended by its cruel and controversial scenes. I'm sure both side are understood here. I did appreciate all the efforts from filmmakers and actors, but I had to say I didn't receive much from this film.I don't think those two kids are feral at all. At least, behind every negative things they did, there are reasons we are capable of making out. I mean...yes, these two kids lived in the dark side of the society since their births, and it's the world who's responsible for all their abnormality and destructive behaviours, and then what? In the film, some others tried to retrieve this situation, but the two kids just didn't buy it and even went further under the pressure, which was understandable. And when I expected the real changes, the film cut out. **(mild spoiler)In the end, the society failed to accept them back while the two kids went on living in their own world. Now that's what disappointed and upset me. And I don't think the adult couple willingly accepted Chloe's hug was strong enough to put an end to the society's effort and also to this film.** In that case, the film's effort on me went halfway...Also, in my opinion any art work should be careful of handling controversial issues. They have to be worthy in a film to achieve the effects, otherwise it could be offending. "Hard Candy" seems to me the best negative example. Fortunately, this one was just OK for me. After all, they were kids. Though doubting the realistic possibility of their extreme behaviours, I can always understand them.However, I believe the filmmakers agree with me on that understanding is not enough for those kids living on the edge of society. We don't want them to end up lost causes.Then there should have been more to this film.

Wow, where did these actors come from? Throughout the film, I was in turmoil who was the better actor, Adele Haenel or Vincent Rottiers. She did an outstanding job in an almost non-speaking role and he was very morose, gloomy and violent as well. I do believe that to get children (although they're almost teens) to act this way is very hard. And to accomplish it in two actors, is very admirable. Ruggia did an excellent job, maybe the casting alone was 90 percent of that.Without spoilering anything, I would like to comment that the let's say, 'least boring scenes' between Haenel and Rottiers, to use a heavy understatement, have not been shot in a mainstream film, since Maladolescenza (1977) ( http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0076749/ ). I suppose Ruggia didn't care about American distribution, and rightly so. Take into account that Maladolescenza was shot in a very different era, where a lot more was possible, a much more permissive epoque when not EVERY bit of skin was declared porn as it is now, we have to salute Ruggia even more, and Haenel and Rottiers as well. Although ... I don't know what the reason is that Haenel has not made a film since Les Diables, and Rottiers has. If it is because of those 'least boring scenes', then that surely would be a pity, because then we would have lost a potentially great actress.