The decision for any actor or actress to appear naked, whether on screen, on stage, or in photographs, can sometimes help, sometimes hurt, and sometimes not make any difference at all to the performer's career. In the case of Lindsay Lohan, her freckle-baring photos in New York Magazine may reinforce the public's perception of her as a "bad girl." We saw a very different reaction when "good guy" Daniel Radcliffe, better known as Harry Potter, stripped down for a production of the stage play Equus. While some decried the example he was setting, young women reportedly attended in droves for the opportunity to admire his (acting) form. From a career standpoint, he widened his future possibilities far beyond the family market.

On the big screen, Viggo Mortensen's deadly naked spa duel in Eastern Promises caught everyone's eye. Playing a "bad boy" with a good heart, Mortensen's willingness to display every inch of his physique only expanded his appeal. His performance earned him a nomination for an Academy Award as Best Actor. Portraying both "bad boys" and "good guys," none of the other Best Actor candidates appeared in the buff in their nominated films, though all have in the past.

As we did yesterday with the women, today we offer a selection of five Academy Award-nominated men. All have appeared naked on the big screen, either this year or in the past, with their most revealing appearance noted. Whose career benefited the most from their willingness to bare all?

Yes Harry Potter fans, its really true. Apparently, you're going to get a chance to see another, ah, side of your favorite wizard-in-training after all -- or at least the actor who plays him, Daniel Radcliffe. We reported this awhile ago when the rumors first surfaced and now it looks like those rumors are confirmed -- and by no less a source than the boy-wizard himself. According to a recent, and exclusive, interview with Newsweek magazine (via Yahoo news), where he speaks for the first time about his upcoming role in the play, Radcliffe is looking to shed the squeaky-clean teenage image acquired during his tenure as Harry Potter, by taking a role on London's stage next summer in a production of the Tony-Award winning drama Equis Equus.

In the interview, Radcliffe said "Part of me wants to shake up people's perception of me, just shove me in a blender -- I hope people will stop and think, 'Maybe he can do something other than Harry." Also according to the article, Radcliffe will play "a troubled young man with a religious-erotic obsession with horses" in the drama and will also perform nude during one scene. Ok, a little creepy, but I'll press on.

I guess one way to prove you can do something else and shatter people's perceptions of you could be to perform nude on stage. It's either going to work out great for him or go down in history as another huge mistake like the Pam and Tommy video or Paris Hilton's acting career. How about it Harry Potter fans, is this a good move for young Mister Radcliffe?

J.K. Rowling is killing two characters off at the end of the seventh, and final, Harry Potter book. I know this news more directly relates to literature than movies, but it will certainly affect the film franchise, and since I stopped reading the series after #5 (I nearly even gave up on the films, but I finally just saw Goblet of Fire and was surprised to find it is the first great Harry Potter movie), and the fact that the books have been discussed here before, I find it appropriate.

Because I didn't read the sixth book, I couldn't tell you with logic who the two might be, although just about everyone thinks one of them will be Harry. Even Rowling hints at this: "I've never wanted to kill him off before the end of book seven, because I always planned seven books and that's where I want to go." Does that mean she did want to kill him at the end? She also told Britain's Channel 4 on Monday that she understands the desire to kill off the main characters in the end so that nobody else can resurrect them after she's done.

Then again, she says of her most recent draft of the final chapter, "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say that two die that I didn't intend to die." So that could mean that Harry is not one of these two. Perhaps he's the one who got a reprieve? The thing is, if you think about her comments, there is no certainty that only two will die. Heck, she could have killed off every character but the saved one.

The best way that I can relate to this is, what if George Lucas had killed off everyone at the end of Return of the Jedi, except Chewbacca? Okay, I'm sure many would have enjoyed seeing the Ewok village go up in flames.