Chemistry. It's a word tossed around in plenty of movie reviews, generally to diagnose whether two actors have it or not. Chemistry can be in the eye of the beholder: some critics may disagree, but if the chemistry is really there, it will show in the way the film catches on. No one can deny that Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan had it in When Harry Met Sally, or that William Powell and Myrna Loy, or Woody Allen and Diane Keaton had it in their many films. But for every hit, there are many, many failed experiments. Here are seven of the most (or least) memorable.

1. Fred Astaire and Joan Fontaine in A Damsel in Distress (1937)
For whatever reason, Astaire decided to break up his hit formula with Ginger Rogers and make this movie without her. His new partner? Joan Fontaine, best known for playing mousy, quietly pretty types (Rebecca, Letter from an Unknown Woman, etc.) and definitely not a song-and-dance woman. Poor Joan was taken to the mat for her lack of singing and hoofing, although the film actually isn't that bad. The ultra-witty P.G. Wodehouse adapted his own novel, it won an Oscar for its dance choreography, and it features another great team: George Burns and Gracie Allen.

2. Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock in Two Weeks Notice (2002)
Every so often some Hollywood executive gets the idea to team up two big stars, hoping that their massive appeal will translate into screen chemistry; it mostly doesn't. These two romantic comedy masters, who have been wonderful in other films with other people, came together like a dull, wet flint, unable to strike even the most meager spark. Another infamous example of this type of casting came in 1986: recent Oscar winners Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep came together for Mike Nichols' Heartburn. Before it opened, it had lots of buzz. After it opened, it had more of a stench.

Casablanca is pretty much a perfect film, but the making of it was anything but smooth. If you pick up the 2003 DVD of the movie, there's documentaries and great commentaries by Roger Ebert and Rudy Behlmer that can attest to this. But a new biography gives us a more inside perspective. The info comes from one of its stars, and one of the most beautiful women ever to grace the big screen: Ingrid Bergman. The book, cleverly titled Ingrid, was written by Charlotte Chandler and looks to be chock full of fascinating stories for fans of the classic movie. In one, Bergman remembers sharing a lunch with Humphrey Bogart before filming began, where "the only subject they found in common was how much they both wanted to get out of Casablanca." Thank God they didn't!

Chandler has written several other Hollywood biographies, and like her books on Bette Davis, Alfred Hitchcock, and Billy Wilder, Ingrid is referred to on the cover as a "personal biography." "It's because I knew the person and spoke with the person and (the book) is based on what they said to me," she says. "It's almost autobiographical. I wanted to keep the voice of the person." Sounds like a great read, and don't worry gossip hounds, the book also explores her personal life. That includes her scandalous relationship with Roberto Rossellini which rocked Hollywood in the 1950s and resulted in the lovely Isabella Rossellini. If you haven't seen Casablanca at this point, shame on you! It almost always ranks in the Top 10 on "Best Movies of All Time" lists, and righfully so. And for more top-notch Bergman, let me recommend the incredible Notorious, one of my favorite films and for my money, the best movie Hitchcock ever made.

Screen legend Lauren Bacall has never been one to keep her opinions to herself. At a press conference in Berlin for her new film, The Walker with Woody Harrelson, about a high-class male escort, Bacall spoke about the negative impact that television has had on the movie business. Bacall was quoted as saying, "I think there are still people who really want to do good work. Unfortunately, in television, sometimes they want to do good work but a lot of the time they're doing terrible work - and I think that has affected moviemaking badly." Bacall never quite explained what that effect was, and as much as I hate to argue with a screen icon, personally I would disagree.

TV shows like 24, LOST, and The Sopranos have definitely raised the bar on what to expect from a television show. In some cases, critics think that TV might even surpass Hollywood fare. Whether Bacall is debating what makes a legend or standing up to the House of Un-American Activities, she isn't afraid to speak her mind. When you've managed to survive for over sixty years in the movie business, you have probably earned the right to. What do you think -- is the proliferation of bad television hurting the movies?

He may be prettier than Humphrey Bogart, but Clive Owen sometimes reminds me of the Casablanca star. I guess I just see a lot of Owen's characters as being the kind who would say that they stick their neck out for nobody. And then there's Owen's voice, which has been heard in voice-overs before and which would work perfectly in a film noir. Of course, Owen isn't distinguished enough to be cemented into the consciousness of cinema in the same way that Bogie has been. In one hundred years, Humphrey Bogart will still be the better remembered actor.

For the time being, though, Owen is probably the best person to take on the part of Philip Marlowe (maybe Billy Bob Thornton would be good, too), a character that most of us associate with Bogart, despite the fact that so many others have played the role, some more than once. Producer Marc Abraham told Louisville, Kentucky's Courier-Journal that he will be following up Children of Men with another collaboration with Owen that will be based on one of Raymond Chandler's detective stories. He didn't specify which story would be adapted, but he did say that Owen would be playing Marlowe.

Everyone is familiar with that obligatory FBI warning message at the beginning of most VHS and DVD videos. You know, the one that tells us that it's illegal to copy the movie we're about to watch. Actually, you're probably so used to it that you don't even pay attention to or notice it anymore. Well, if a number of attorney generals have their way, we could be seeing new anti-smoking PSAs when we turn on a movie, too. According to these attorney generals (representing 35 of the 50 states), smoking in movies continues to influence teenage smoking, and apparently they believe that young people will know better if they see a warning before the feature begins.

I don't know about other former (or current) smokers, but I am still attracted to cigarettes when I see them smoked on screen. Of course, when I was a non-smoking teen, the depiction never phased me, so I can't agree that smoking in movies advertises cigarettes, but particularly in old movies, smoking does at times look pretty cool. So far, the MPAA has not decided to accept the proposed PSAs, and they are reportedly investigating "anti-smoking alternatives," but if they were to break down and issue the warning to studios with a mandate to include them on DVDs (etc.), they might as well have PSAs that tell us not to use guns, commit adultery, eat fatty foods, drink alcohol, and many other things that could ruin our well-being. And instead of putting the warnings at the head of the movie, they should put them right before the credits, or during them, to tell us that what we've just seen is not good for us -- similar to when sitcoms had "very special episodes" accompanied by such messages.
The one thing I could suggest that might work is to have a PSA with a montage of all the famous actors and actresses who have died of lung or throat cancer. If they have video of the celebrities in their last days, that might work even better. Otherwise, we're likely to eventually become used to and ignore them just as we do with the anti-piracy warning.

Many people best remember Nicholas Ray, born on this day in 1911, as the director of Rebel Without a Cause. Some might recall the cult classic Johnny Guitar. But earlier this year, I saw his 1950 film In a Lonely Place, and was surprised that the movie hasn't received more attention. I had read some glowing essays about the movie when it was released on DVD, but I was skeptical -- I don't always like Humphrey Bogart in dramatic roles, especially when he's trying to break out of the tough-guy persona. (I confess I couldn't stand him in Treasure of the Sierra Madre ... it was so disappointing.)

Bogart is perfect in In a Lonely Place as Dixon Steele, the aggressively nasty, occasionally even violent writer who is accused of murder. His neighbor, Laurel Gray (Gloria Grahame), provides him with an alibi ... and the two fall for each other almost immediately afterwards. Everything is rosy until Steele's violent side surfaces at unexpected times. The above image is from a scene that takes place during one of those times. However, we're still able to sympathize with Steele much of the time, which is one reason why this is such a good movie. Ray directed less than 30 films, and a number of them are nearly forgotten today, but In a Lonely Place is one of his very best.

Eventually every block in Manhattan should have an extra nickname in addition to its actual address. Enough famous things happen in the borough, I'm sure. One of these famous things was the growing up of Humphrey Bogart at 245 W. 103rd Street. Over the weekend, super-fan Gary Dennis, a video store owner who campaigned for the honoring of Bogie and Lauren Bacall, who was married to the actor until his death in 1957, joined other fans in the drizzling rain to declare that block of 103rd Street "Humphrey Bogart Place."

"I'm happy he is honored," Bacall said at the event, "of course, it's only brass on a wall." Only brass? Certainly Bacall has never taken delight in learning about the city's history via plaques, which I've gotten more into since reading Sarah Vowell's Assassination Vacation. Just the other day I learned that a building I pass sometimes in Brooklyn was the first multi-family home in the borough. Okay, so maybe most people don't care about that stuff, but everyone cares about movie trivia, right? With all the movies shot in New York, perhaps the city could put up more plaques and rename more streets to showcase where film shoots occurred. The most obvious I can think of is the corner of N. Moore and Varick, which should definitely be renamed Ghostbusters Place if it hasn't been already.