I disagree with a reviewer who says that the music from the first film is "dreck" and that the music of this sequel is even worse. First off, I am prejudiced because I and my wife-to-be used "Michelle's Song" (Cast a pebble on the water, watch the ripples slowly spreading...) for our Wedding! To each his own.Actually, I found the melody of the song in Paul and Michelle to be very pretty, sweet... and ever so sad, particularly when played by a wind instrument at the very end of the movie! What I think that the other reviewer is noticing is the overly intellectual, just plain poor lyrics that go with that melody. The lyrics are too heavy and wordy and it kills the melody. The jazzy arrangement at the beginning of the film doesn't do justice to the melody, as the singer at the beginning of the film doesn't do justice to the melody either. So, on its own, the melody is not dreck or worse, it is hauntingly sad when played in its orchestral arrangement alone, but the lyrics and singing of the song using that tearful melody never should have happened!

This is the sequel to the unlikely 1971 hit "Friends", a movie about rich British boy living in Paris who meets a poor, orphaned French girl and runs off with her to "play house" in the countryside, only to end up with a child. It's three years later and Paul has just graduated as head boy from a tony private school and is planning to attend the Sorbonne in the fall. He decides to spend the summer seeking out Michelle and his illegitimate child (apparently they'd never heard of legally obligated child support in France at the time). He finds her living with another man (Keir Dullea), who is an accomplished judo master. Just when you think Paul is finally going to get his teeth kicked down his throat (after he takes Michelle to a cheap hotel for sex on their first get-reacquainted date), Dullea's character does something quite unbelievable instead which clears the way for the movie to needlessly cover the EXACT same ground it had already trod in the first film.The best reason to see this film is no doubt beautiful French actress Anicee Alvina, who is obviously no less appealing here at 20 than she was at 17 in the earlier film. Once again, she has plenty of nude scenes (including a flashback) that are each, of course, completely essential to the plot. Far be it from me to complain about THAT, but by this time Alvina had begun to appear in deranged Alain Robbe-Grillet art/porn films and the above-par Italian giallo "Anima Persae", which make just as good of use her, but are also much more worthwhile viewing than this rather saccharine film. And Alvina also didn't have to speak English in those films. Usually, cute French girls with accents are even more sexy, but Alvina seems to speak English only phonetically in both of these movies, and it gets more than a little irritating.I also can't rave about Elton John, who provided the surprising hit song for the first film, but the music in this sequel is much, much worse than even the worst dreck in the Elton John oeuvre. This film is not really a bad film, but it simply has no reason to really exist, no real "raison d'etre" (hey, I think my French is better than Alvina's English). They should probably have just quit while they were ahead. . .

**Spoilers** I haven't seen this movie in 15 years, and I remember it meaning so much to me, as I was around that age. My head was stuck firmly in the clouds, and I hoped I would find a boy like Paul, just to take me away from my life (well, he seemed quite the nice chap, no?) In any case, saw "Friends" and "Paul et Michelle" once again today (3/17/2004) back to back. I must say, the acting improved (well, at least for Anicee Alvina...Sean Bury was fairly decent in the first movie). Some of the scenes in both movies gave me quite a chuckle...they seemed so forced! But I suppose it is pretty hard to act that depth of emotion when you hardly know one another and having to take your clothes off. Overall, I marvelled at the subject matter...that *puppy love* would be seen as commonplace now.The saddest part of both films is the end, of course, especially in the second one. *SPOILER* You know they will never see each other again. *sigh*I wonder what ever happened to Sean Bury....? Looked all over the net, and came up with nothing.All in all, watching these films was nicely escapist...

CONTAINS SPOILER!!!! Although "Paul and Michelle" isn't as good as "Friends" as some would say it still holds its own. I actually saw this one before I saw the Friends. Anicee Alvina and Sean Bury still have good chemistry together. The thing about this movie that upset me was the ending. Why would the director wait three years to make a sequal and then in the end have the two seperate. I would have liked to see them stay together and get married. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a love story. There are quite a few good moments in the movie. But it's not as magical as "Friends".