You've got the typical subsidised French movie: the writer-director-author puts in some nice bits about his characters and he is pretty content with his flimsy story. Looks like low production specs with a Parisian artsy bourgeois coating. Mid-life crisis & intellectual couple trouble - check. Political/social issue - check. Father-son relationship - check. Male friendship, mmmm.... not so sure. Heterosexual unease in a gay context - check. Hypocrisy and shallowness of the powerful - check.

Quite frankly it is boring to think so many movies are made in France about Parisian intellectuals who have little problems in their lives but who really suffer because they're aware of all the misery outside. The title says it all, and we can guess Pascal Bonitzer was not sidelined when a release titled had to be decided upon. The title means nothing, it doesn't stay, it is most probably a pretentious intellectual guess game.

All in all it is somewhat distressing to see such movies that go nowhere and are plenty happy with it. Cherchez Hortense doesn't go as far as being pretentious author stuff, he never wants to assert a message, that's what makes it nice and very forgettable. And with such a poor title it is a movie that can be forgotten even before you seriously think of seeing it.

I can see why such a movie could be so easily dismissed by your regular Hollywood addict, it's slow, rather smart and very much grounded in reality, and it's your typical Parisian literary approach to cinema story telling. Although I should emphasize the fact that I don't use the word typical in a derogatory way. Desplechin, Podalydes, Bonitzer, Resnais and other French directors, may seem stylistically or thematically close, but in truth are very different from one another. They take movies seriously, the European way, for them it's not about plot or sending a clear message to the viewer, they're more concerned with lofty concepts, creating a mood or simply sharing their views on the human condition. So yes, the protagonist is an intellectual (so is Bonitzer, he used to be a philosophy teacher) and yes, the thing happening to him may not seem to warrant a 2 hour movie, his life is boring, and so is often our own. Bonitzer, shows the naked truth, and it's risky, because that's not why most people go to movies, and I get that, but the movie is actually fun (in parts), never sentimental but sincere and touching. It's a fine movie, honest, solid, definitely worthy of the price of admission. It's very French and definitely naturalistic and intellectual, but pretentious it is not, but to put it simply, it'll be freezing in Hell before Bonitzer starts dumbing down his movies!

Whoever classified this movie as a 'comedy' must have a strange sense of humour. Mildly amusing in parts, it is hardly full of laughs. Indeed it seems a rather sad story - ageing French professor Hauer is asked by his partner, Iva, to use his high-level contacts in the judiciary to secure the future of an illegal immigrant, Aurore. He visits his father, a judge, hoping to get access to the man at the top, Hortense. However, his father has little time for him (figuratively and literally) and Hortense has even less. Hauer discovers his partner is having an affair with a younger man and tells her to leave their apartment and their young, brattish son. He encounters a student who turns out to be the illegal immigrant, Aurore. A relationship develops . . . A gun, gay oriental youth,Japanese cuisine and a visual reference to cherry blossom are added to the mix. It's all quite fragmented and puzzling and very French/Parisian - but also sufficiently intriguing to keep you watching (or rather me; my wife fell asleep!). I'm not sure why, but I did enjoy it. (Viewed at Screen 3, The Cornerhouse, Manchester, UK 31 August 2013).