“When I auditioned for the movie I didn’t know what I was auditioning for,” Smith told me during a phone interview to promote the DVD/Blue-ray release of the sequel on Jan. 24. “I was just asked to show up and not prepare anything. After a few auditions they started telling me more about the movie. When I found out it was ‘Paranormal’ it was very exciting.”

Although it is the third installment of the franchise, “Paranormal Activity 3” is actually a prequel to the first two movies. It begins when the adult sisters haunted in the first two films are children.

During our interview, Smith talked about some of the bold choices directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman made to complete the trilogy and why he thinks the “Paranormal Activity” franchise has been so successful over the last five years.

How did it feel coming into this franchise knowing how popular the first two movies were?

It was really exciting. It sort of took the pressure off knowing that the franchise was already such a big success. I knew I was in good hands especially after I met everyone involved.

Had you seen the directors’ last film, “Catfish?”

Yeah, I did see it. [Directors] Henry [Joost] and Ariel [Schulman] are actually buddies of mine from New York. A couple of years ago they told me about “Catfish.” Obviously, my interest was peaked. It was amazing what they captured. They’re very good at building tension. I think that was really well utilized in “Paranormal.”

Something I really liked in this new “Paranormal” movie was that instead of having stationary cameras like in the first two, there is a camera panning back and forth, which makes it more intense because the frame of the footage is always changing and you never know what’s coming.

Yeah, when they told me they were going to do that I thought it was such a great idea. It was such an innovative, thoughtful way of moving the franchise forward.

How did you feel playing the role of a father? Did it come natural?

Well, I have a lot of younger cousins, so I’m really like the fun older cousin. That’s one of my roles in the family I take a lot of pride in, so hanging out with the girls in “Paranormal” was really fun for me.

Something I found interesting in this new installment was that the entity that is haunting the family actually causes physical pain to one of the little girls. I thought that was a pretty gutsy move in the script.

Yeah, I don’t think the audience reacted negatively to it. If anything, it was an exiting and maybe even scarier part of the movie. I mean, kids can get hurt sometimes, so it made it more realistic.

What do you think it is about the “Paranormal Activity” franchise that keeps audiences wanting more?

It’s this notion that something bad can happen at night in this big house. The filmmakers have been really clever about it, especially with a lower budget than most films. They’ve really been able to find new subtle ways of scaring people.

Since finishing this movie, has your sleeping pattern been affected in any way?

(Laughs) No, not at all. I still can’t sleep. The making of the movie was actually not scary at all. Watching the movie was also not scary for me because I experienced almost every frame in real life. I always knew what was coming.

What scared you as a kid?

I would have recurring nightmares about spiders. I really related to this franchise because when I was alone in a dark room as a kid my imagination would runs wild. Before you know it I was running up the stairs and hiding in my tent.

Part 4 of this franchise is coming in October. Where do we go from here? I mean, what else can you do with this series?

I don’t know. I’m very excited to see what they do. I really have no idea. I’m sure they’ll think of something. They’ve done it before, so I’m sure they’ll do it again.

During an interview with me, Mewes talked about kicking his addiction and how podcasting has changed his life.

Do you really think you’re getting old?

Not really. Well, not until things like 10-year-reunions come around. That’s when you realize it’s kind of crazy. I feel like I’m old when I see someone I’ve known since they were in diapers with a house and two kids and a dog.

Does podcasting come natural to you now that you’ve been doing it for a while?

Yeah, definitely. I used to jot down a lot more notes before. We would never plan anything, but I liked to jot down a few topics. Now, it flows better. There have been times when Kevin and I don’t even talk before the show. He’ll show up and we have to jump on stage a minute later. It’s gotten a lot easier.

Have there been times when you ended a podcast and thought, “Why did I say that?”

There’s probably been like two or three times, but not anything where I’ve thought, “Oh, man, let’s turn back time!” But there have been a few times when my wife was in the audience and I would tell a story about us from the night before and thought, “Oh, that’s probably going to embarrass her.” There have been a few shows where Kevin’s mom was in the audience and I’ll start telling a story and she’ll be staring right at me.

Has talking about your past addictions during the show helped you tackle some of those issues you might’ve ignored before?

The whole podcast has been helpful in me getting things out. It’s been really flattering when people come up to me after a show and share their stories with me and tell me how the podcast has inspired them and helped them through their own addiction.

How have you kept yourself from going back to that place?

Well, it definitely feels good to get away from that place. It got really bad. I was literally moments away from being homeless. None of my friends would talk to me. Now, I’ve built everything back to a good place. Everything just feels better – physically, mentally. It’s the podcast and everything combined that helps me wake up and think about what I want to accomplish and what I don’t want to do.

Before you got sober back in 2006, you burned some bridges with Kevin. Did you think the friendship could be mended?

I got worried. I knew it could be mended, but I didn’t know if it would ever be the same. It’s great now. We spend more time together than we ever have. He’s played a major role in helping me all these years. I really don’t know where I’d be without him.

What is man’s most primal fear? Losing everything he loves? Dying alone? The unknown? These are only a few of the themes explored in “The Grey,” a surprisingly thoughtful character-driven thriller with a lot more to say than most man vs. Mother Nature survival stories. Imagine if all films that fell under this category were as emotionally rich as, say, “Cast Away,” “127 Hours,” “Into the Wild,” or “Jeremiah Johnson.” It might be easier to examine a lone man fighting for life than to tackle the complexities of a group under siege, but “The Grey” gets about as close as any mainstream movie has in recent years with its study of a team of oil drillers.

Director/writer Joe Carnahan, who broke into the scene in 2002 with the gritty, well-executed cop drama “Narc” before dropping two cinematic bombs (“Smokin’ Aces,” “The A-Team”), was motivated by the fear of being known for those last two mind-numbing contributions. “I started getting concerned that I was being viewed … as this schmucky action director that doesn’t really have anything meaningful to say,” Carnahan admitted during an interview with NPR last week. With “The Grey,” Carnahan, who is currently linked to a “Death Wish” remake and a crime drama centered on Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar, doesn’t have to worry anymore. “The Grey” has substance without getting too preachy or philosophical.

Led by John Ottway (Liam Neeson in another alpha-male role), a team of suddenly planeless oil drillers must fend off a vicious pack of grey wolves stalking them from the darkness of the snow-covered wilderness. Walk into “The Grey” hoping to see a wolf get dropkicked in the snout or a stockpile of wolf-eaten bodies and be prepared for disappointment. This isn’t about man-on-wolf combat as much as it is about confronting one’s own mortality. It may have felt insincere had it been anyone else screaming to God to show him a sign He exists, but with Neeson digging as deep as he does it all rings unexpectedly true.

“It was about 20-30 degrees below zero with 80 mph winds,” Bray, who is of Irish and Mexican descent, told me during an interview last week. “Our heads were freezing so badly, we could barely say any of our dialogue.”

In “The Grey,” Bray plays Hernández, an airplane crash survivor who must survive in the wild while a pack of grey wolves stalk him and his team of oil drillers.

During our interview, Bray, who has worked as a stuntman in the film industry for nearly 20 years, talked about playing an actual character in a movie and how he thinks special effects have changed the way directors confront certain scenes in their movies.

Tell us about your character Hernández and what you liked so much about him.

He is obviously a bad guy, but he seems to be one of those guys that could’ve gone to the good side or the bad side at a young age. I just understood him as a guy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I think there is a nice guy in Hernández, but he was just exposed to the wrong situations. But there is a soft spot to him. He has a heart.

Most of your career has been as a stuntman, so what is the experience like for you when you get the opportunity to play an actual character in a movie?

You get to be emotionally involved in a character at that moment. It’s an art form. It’s a different type of art than stunts. Stunts are more technical at times. As an actor, you come in as an emotional being. It was a fantastic experience.

How have special effects changed the film industry for you as a stuntman?

It’s affected us. We’re always worried about those things. I mean, special effects have its place in certain circumstances. I still think it’s hard to fool the audience. They know the difference between a CGI person and a live-action person. There have been times where I’ll be in a production meeting and the script will show a six-car pile up with people running out of the vehicles and a huge explosion. Then they say, “Instead of having 12 people running out we’re going to have five people and we’ll add smoke and fire later [with CGI].” That’s the tough part. The business is evolving. Some directors are OK with it and some directors like Joe Carnahan [of “The Grey”] love live action want to keep the film as real as possible.

So, no CGI wolves in “The Grey?”

Well, we use actual wolves, yes, but like I said there is a place for special effects. In “The Grey,” there are CGI wolves, but we also have real wolves. Here is a perfect example of having to use CGI in specific scenes. These grey wolves are much bigger than the average wolf. They are almost prehistoric. These wolves are so menacing and vicious, but real wolves are more like dogs. They’re not as vicious as the wolves in this story. So, there had to be CGI wolves in reference to the action.

When someone asks about your background as a stuntman, what films would you tell them to see to get a better sense of what you do?

Well, my background is boxing. I was the stunt coordinator on “The Fighter” with Mark Wahlberg, so I’d want them to see that. But I’d also want them to see “The A-Team,” which shows a mixture of CGI and action. Those two films would really show a young stuntman who wants to be part of the industry what it’s all about.

“I rarely watched the show before Season 10,” Rodríguez admitted to me during an interview to help promote Season 11, which premiered last week. “Now, I know what it’s like to be there, so I’m probably going to want to see everything.”

Last season, Rodríguez, who is half Dominican and half Peruvian, finished in 12^th place after making it to the semifinals. She was commended by many Latino viewers for making a bold choice to sing in both English and Spanish during the competition.

During our interview, Rodríguez talked about why she connects more with Spanish-language music and what it’s really like singing in front of someone like Jennifer Lopez.

“American Idol” airs Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7 p.m. on Fox.

Last season when you were a contestant, why was it so important for you to perform in both English and Spanish?

Spanish is my first language. My parents are from the Dominican Republic and Peru. They both came to the U.S. to seek opportunities. For me to have an opportunity like “American Idol” speaks volumes. A lot Latinos are still coming over here to the U.S. to seek those same dreams, but there are so many out there who don’t feel like they’re represented. I wanted to be their voice and speak for all of them. I want to tell them, “You can be President. You can get that job. You can be the net big pop star.”

Did you ever worry you would disconnect yourself from the TV audience who were not bilingual?

No, because I feel like I have the best of both worlds. I am Latina and I am an American. Eventually when I do become the artist I know I can be I’m going to want to sing in both languages. I wanted to show people who I am from the very beginning. I want them to know I’ve been real this whole time.

When you sing in Spanish does it feel different than when you sing in English? Do you deliver the songs differently?

I think Spanish music is so much different than English music, especially the Spanish music I grew up hearing and singing. I think I might connect with Spanish a little more. Spanish music tends to have more emotion. There is a lot of pain in boleros and rancheras. When singers like Celia Cruz or Marc Anthony sing a song in Spanish about heartbreak, they leave their pain on the stage. You can hear the cries in their voices. That’s what I try to deliver as well.

What was it like singing in front of someone you idolize like Jennifer Lopez?

How many people get to sing in front of their idol every week? I had been following her career since I was eight years old. I grew up listening to all her songs and buying her albums. To have her there and develop a relationship with her through music was great. She’s been one of my guides in my career.

Last year was the first year Simon Cowell was not on the judges’ panel. Some critics said the judges were too easy on the contestants. Even Jennifer Lopez has stated the judges are going to be tougher this season. Did you feel like you received enough constructive criticism or would you have liked more?

I think it was the first time for Steven [Tyler] and Jennifer so they were trying different things out. Personally, I loved the judges when I was on the show. It was like they were doing comedy. We knew we weren’t going to go on stage and feel like we were going to be attacked. Contestants that had Simon judging them probably felt a little scared. For me, I just tried to go out there and do what I do. If they liked it, that was great. If they didn’t, they would tell us with care and love. I think that’s something everyone needs from their mentors. At the end of the day, I knew that when I performed on stage I was going to leave with a smile on my face.

When it comes to cross-dressing and film, male characters color coordinating handbags and heels are typically played for laughs (“Mrs. Doubtfire,” “Tootsie,” “The Birdcage”). Those films wherein a female character shows off her masculine side tend more to the dramatic (“Boys Don’t Cry,” “Yentl”). Sure, there are exceptions, but in Hollywood a boy in pantyhose is funny; a girl speaking in a lower register is just too heartbreaking to imagine.

That gender-bending double standard carries over to the occasionally sympathetic but more often stagnant period drama “Albert Nobbs.” Adapted from a short story by Irish novelist George Moore, Nobbs stars five-time Academy Award-nominee Glenn Close (“Dangerous Liaisons”) as a woman living in 19th-century Dublin who disguises herself as a man so she can work as a waiter in an upscale hotel. Waiting on stuffy guests, “Albert” is saving each shilling she earns so she can purchase her own tobacco shop. When Albert’s secret is accidentally revealed, however, her once seemingly attainable dream evolves into something much more complicated.

As Albert, Close takes on the most daring role of her career since the 1987 thriller “Fatal Attraction.” The physical look of the character may not be nearly as unbelievable as Julie Andrews’ in the 1982 musical comedy “Victor Victoria,” but even the noteworthy makeup and prosthetics are a bit bizarre looking. Confined inside her black suit and tie for most of the film, it’s Close’s nervous glances, awkward smiles, and perfunctory movements that actually bring to life this reclusive human being whose character depth should be far more involved than the one-dimensional script would have you believe. “Such a kind little man,” one hotel guest says when describing Albert to her husband. Unfortunately, the rest of the screenplay doesn’t do much better in bringing Albert to light.

Credited as a co-writer, Close, who also wrote the lyrics for the original song “Lay Your Head Down” sung by Sinead O’Connor, cuts corners when attempting to expand on the emotional agony Albert endures. It’s only during a few scenes where she speaks candidly with Hubert Page (Janet McTeer), a house painter also facing an identity crisis, when a more meaningful narrative is exposed beyond the tea parties and gossiping help. McTeer, who was nominated for an Oscar in 1999 for “Tumbleweeds,” matches Close shot for shot when they share the screen. The collaboration is poignant, but ultimately gets sidelined in favor of an insignificant relationship between a naive young maid (Mia Wasikowska) and an insensitive maintenance man (Aaron Johnson). Also lost somewhere inside the script is actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers (“Match Point”), who shows up as a hotel guest for no legitimate reason other than to don Victorian Era garb.

Directed by Rodrigo García, whose last film was the touching 2009 drama “Mother and Child,” “Albert Nobbs” is a picture lacking passion and genuine conflict. It’s also missing that great sense of female empowerment it desperately wants to convey; in fact, it seemingly has no idea where to begin. Putting Albert in a dress and sending him to run on a beach just doesn’t cut it.

With 9/11 brooding at the center of its emotionally manipulative core, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” displays about as much modesty regarding the 2001 tragedy as Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign. Simply put: it’s an exploitative sham.

While the self-important drama would like to do for September 11 what a film like 1997′s “Life is Beautiful” (“La vita è bella”) did for the Holocaust by telling a whimsical and heartfelt story within the framework of an unimaginably painful time in history, it doesn’t have nearly enough charm to pull it off. Its lack of quality storytelling and characterization begins and ends with acting newcomer Thomas Horn as the film’s main character Oskar Schell. Metaphorically and pretentiously speaking, the boy’s last name could refer to the hard outer covering of the personality he must break through to let others in. Sigh.

Oskar, who just might be one of the most posturing characters in cinematic history, is unlike any other brainy 9-year-old kid usually seen in the locker room with his underwear pulled over his head. Not only is he an amateur entomologist, Francophile, pacifist, and undiagnosed autistic — his idea of fun is going on fact-finding expeditions through the New York City his father (Tom Hanks) creates for him. When his father dies in the World Trade Center attacks, Oskar is convinced a mysterious key he discovers is a clue left behind for his next journey.

Ignore the fact that Oskar’s mother (Sandra Bullock) allows him to walk around NYC unsupervised or that actually coming across a lock the key will fit is highly improbable; what is most problematic about the screenplay is the rambunctious and grating nature of Oskar himself and the phony relationships he creates along the way, including one with his estranged mute grandfather (Max von Sydow).

Despite the exaggerated melodrama, what works best in the film are the few moments director Stephen Daldry (The Hours) allows a child’s perspective to be the window through which the audience watches the events of September 11 unfold. Hanks, too, is memorable when he’s not on screen. The voice messages he leaves on an answering machine on what Oskar calls “the worst day” are chilling, to say the least.

Beyond that, however, “Extremely Loud” is meaningless. As much as it wants to affect, connect, and heal, there’s only so much fiction you can attach to 9/11 before it feels like just another sob story. If the Academy made a glaring gaffe with this year’s nominations, it was in calling this sentimental drivel one of the best films of the year. In fact, this is a forced tearjerker that can’t wrap up soon enough.

Since then, Perlman, 61, has starred in a variety of films and TV shows including last year in “Drive” and “Conan the Barbarian.” In his latest film, “The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption,” Perlman plays Egyptian king Horus. During an interview with me, Perlman discussed his first trip to Thailand to shoot the film and what he thinks about all the Oscar buzz his fellow “Drive” co-star Albert Brooks is receiving.

“The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption” was released on DVD and Blu-ray Jan. 17.

What drew you to a role like King Horus in “The Scorpion King 3?”

I admired the heart and mind of this king. I admired the ramifications of his decision making. I admired he was always thinking in terms of the greater good. He was always taking into consideration the long term aspects of the positions he took. He was someone I respected, which is one of the reasons I wanted to play him.

You were also in “Conan the Barbarian” last year. What is it about these action fantasy films that resonate with you?

The only thing that ever matters to me is how well the story is rendered on the page and how interested I am in exploring the particular humanity of the character they offer. It’s never about the genre or other trappings like the period or whether it’s a comedy or drama or action film. In both instances, I really admired the characters and felt like the storytelling was really interesting, unpredictable and smart. The fact they are both period pictures with sword fighting is truly coincidental. It has no weight on whether or not I decide to be a part of the film.

As an actor, is a film that is going straight to DVD like “The Scorpion King 3” as rewarding as a film that has a theatrical release?

I never really concern myself with what happens to a project after I’m finished working on it. I mean it’s nice when you’re part of something that’s successful and that people love and respond to positively, but you have to be prepared for the opposite of that as well. The only thing that I know that I have any control of is the time I spend working on a project. If I’m happy with what I’ve done and other people I’m working around are happy with it, then I don’t concern myself with whether is goes to DVD or 8 million screens across the universe.

What was it like shooting the film in Thailand? Had you ever shot a movie there before?

It was my first time in Thailand and it was a beautiful experience for me. I’m kind of obsessed with immersing myself in new cultures and trying to understand how people think and why they move through life the way they do and what are the things that are culturally and socio-politically affecting them. It’s really interesting to go to as many places around the world as humanly possible and explore all those things. I was really struck with how beautiful the people of Thailand are. They’re very generous and joyful. They have dignity even in poverty. I try to understand how that is possible. Thailand was a phenomenal addition to a very lucky life of moving through the world that my profession has afforded me.

Now, you’re in pretty incredible shape yourself, but does sharing the screen with guys like Batista and Kimbo Slice ever get even a little intimidating for you?

Well, first thing I do when I get on the set is challenge them all to a fight. (Laughs) Then when I finish kicking their asses, we know who the real deal is. I have nothing but admiration for guys like that who are dedicated as they are and keep themselves in the condition they do. We all start out on this unbelievable respectable level with each other. We all know we’re here to do this movie together. We all know we all make each other look good. It’s great to work with guys that have delighted you in a lot of different ways.

What makes an actor like Billy Zane easy to hate as a movie villain?

It’s just the way he throws himself into a role. He’s one of the most theatrical performers that I’ve ever worked with. He doesn’t do anything halfway and he makes big, broad choices. So, when he’s playing a bad guy, that guy’s really bad.

Congratulations of everything that is going on with “Sons of Anarchy.” It must feel pretty great to be on a TV show with so much substance and to be able to mold your character every season.

It’s amazing. That’s one of those truly delightful aspects of life for me in these last few years. The public has really embraced that show. The critics are starting to realize the scope of the show and have really given us a second look. We’re getting a lot of love critically and in a populist way. Those things are rare in my business – to be that successful. At my age I’ve done a lot of things before that have fallen flat on their faces, so nobody appreciates a show like “Sons of Anarchy” more than I do.

On that note, someone who has found a lot of success in the last year is your fellow actor in “Drive” Albert Brooks. What are your thoughts on all the Oscar buzz his role is receiving? When you were shooting the movie did you realize it was an Oscar-worthy performance?

Well, yeah, all you have to do is read the script and see that the role of Bernie Rose is phenomenally rendered. [Director] Nicolas Refn might be the only guy on the planet that would’ve thought of that particular casting. It’s so interesting to put Albert Brooks in that role. You know what you’re going to get on the screen is going to be compelling and watchable and very unobvious. That’s one of the reason it’s attracting great praise and critical attention. I’m not surprised at all. Albert is one of the great American icons. He’s truly and American treasure and has been since he first burst onto the scene a few decades ago. It’s delightful to see him being noticed for this role.

If you could tell your fans to revisit one of your movies that you don’t think received enough attention, which would it be and why? Personally, I think more people need to see a little dark comedy you made back in 1995 called “The Last Supper.”

“The Last Supper” is definitely a film I’m quite proud of. I did a little movie about three years ago called “I Sell the Dead,” which got a lot of attention at the film festivals. People loved it critically. Audiences loved it. It got a horrible release and no one saw it. I was so proud of the work we did in that movie. That would be the movie I would recommend people to go get. It’s pure entertainment and really effective.

The new animated series “Napoleon Dynamite” joined Fox’s Sunday night lineup for the first time last weekend. During an interview with me, actor Efren Ramirez, best know for his role as Napoleon Dynamite’s sidekick Pedro Sanchez, talked about reprising his role as the sweet-hearted transfer student from Mexico and how revisiting a character like Pedro will be good for him.

“Napoleon Dynamite” airs Sundays on Fox at 7:30 p.m.

“Napoleon Dynamite” has returned but in animated form? What’s going on?

(Laughs) Yeah, Jared [Hess], who directed “Napoleon Dynamite,” always wanted to do something else with the film. The studio thought of doing a sequel or a prequel. I think Jared also had the idea to make it into a cartoon. They definitely wanted to create something that was as great as the first. You want to do something bigger and better without destroying the characters or the story. There are so many fans out there that are so excited that “Napoleon Dynamite” is coming back.

Not only that, but the entire original cast is back to voice their characters, right?

Yeah, I’m really excited they got the original cast. The ensemble cast in “Napoleon Dynamite” really got close to each other. We all became good friends, so to be able to be on set with them again is like working with family. It really gives us the opportunity to participate even more in the creative process.

What did you think of Pedro when you saw him in animated form for the first time?

(Laughs) Well, my head doesn’t look like a football and it does look kind of goofy, but that’s fine. I just kept thinking, “This is really sweet!” Seeing Pedro in cartoon form is still really surreal. I’m really excited about the show and can’t wait to do more episodes.

“Napoleon Dynamite” is joining heavy hitters like “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” on Fox’s Sunday night lineup. Is there any pressure?

(Laughs) Well, on a grand scale, I think each show is really different even though they are all animations. They each are in their own genre. To be a part of that is just amazing. I hope we can dominate like those show have done – for at least 50 years or as long as I’m alive!

The last time I interviewed you, you said it was important for you to distance yourself from your role as Pedro so directors wouldn’t automatically think of you as “that guy from ‘Napoleon Dynamite.’” Do you think reprising your role might take you in the wrong direction as an actor?

There is a great divide when you get into this business. You can work on things that are artsy and build on story and character or you can do things that are popular and just keep playing the same thing. But let’s look at this with perspective: Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin played one specific character in all their films and they were very funny. When I get roles like Pedro I think about the premise of the story and where can I take the character. If it’s heartfelt, then people are going to want to know the story and the character. I still want to be an actor that can do lots of different things. I’ve been doing that ever since “Napoleon Dynamite” came out.

What can we anticipate from an animated version of Pedro?

Well, we get to see more and explore more with Pedro and the rest of the characters. You also get to see more of the world they live in. In an animated series things can blow up and people can die, but they’ll be back the next week.

Have you ever played tetherball against Jon Heder? Who won?

(Laughs) No, I haven’t, but I’m sure he’d probably win because I’ve heard he has some mad skills.

What is the coolest piece of “Napoleon Dynamite” memorabilia you own?

I have this “Napoleon Dynamite” poster from the U.K. that is very different. I also have the two original “Vote for Pedro” t-shirts from the movie. I hope to give them to my kids one day if that day ever comes.

Over the span of a year he’s played iconic comic-book villain Magneto in “X-Men: First Class,” classic literary character Mr. Rochester in “Jane Eyre,” and groundbreaking Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung in “A Dangerous Method,” but it still took Michael Fassbender (“Inglourious Basterds”) showing off a little more than his acting ability to get some serious consideration this awards season. Not that Fassbender going full frontal in “Shame” was the only reason he’s received universal acclaim for his portrayal of a New York City sex addict. The role, which Fassbender nails with unflinching confidence, is meaningful to witness. It’s impossible to turn away from it.

While most warm-blooded Americans enjoy sex, clean-cut businessman Brandon Sullivan (Fassbender) craves it like a heroin addict needs a fix. Brandon sleepwalks through each day – going to work, downloading ridiculous amounts of porn, and trolling the city at night for his next female conquest. At times, he doesn’t even have to make much of an effort. One seductive glance at an attractive red head on the subway and she’s practically having an orgasm in her seat. The life Brandon is accustomed to is disturbed when his equally troubled sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) moves into his apartment and triggers painful memories he’s always ignored.

In “Shame,” all those unearthed emotions are exposed brilliantly by both Fassbender and Mulligan, who through their brother/sister relationship demonstrate their lack of boundaries when inhabiting the same space. Director/co-writer Steve McQueen (“Hunger”) skirts the idea of sexual abuse or incest in their past, leaving the audience playing a kind of cinematic shrink.

“We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place,” Sissy tells her brother during one powerful scene. McQueen and co-writer Abi Morgan (“The Iron Lady”) don’t reveal those nightmarish scenarios she’s referring to, instead focusing on the emotional destruction it has caused. What we’re left to watch is a damaged man whose addiction controls his lifestyle; someone who only finds contentment through physical pleasure. Retreating to a bathroom stall during the workday to masturbate, one might wonder if instead of coming, he should be crying.

Stamped with an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, Shame does have its share of fairly explicit sex scenes all necessary in context. The sex, however, isn’t what should arouse intrigue. Fassbender and Mulligan deliver on each of these complex roles an artful take on the fear of intimacy. Together they explore a taboo subject rarely confronted in film and prove there are more important issues than just what’s happening between the sheets.

With a title like “Carnage,” even if the weapon of choice is words, one might expect to see some type of intellectual bloodbath. In Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski’s (“The Pianist”) new dark comedy, the dialogue may be sharp at times, but the force behind the jabs is nothing a little Band-Aid wouldn’t fix. As overblown as it is, however, those involved would have you believe they were tossed into a pit of meat cleavers.

Based on the play “God of Carnage” written by Yasmina Reza (the Broadway version starring Jeff Daniels, Hope Davis, James Gandolfini, and Marcia Gay Harden won Best Play at the 2009 Tony Awards), the screenplay — co-written by Polanski and Reza — starts off effortlessly enough before diving into a diatribe of irritating proportions.

Two preteen boys get into a fight at a park in the swankier side of Brooklyn. One of the kids busts the other’s mouth with a big stick (in a less privileged neighborhood it might’ve been a shank or a 9mm). The kids’ parents (Cristoph Waltz and Kate Winslet play Alan and Nancy Cowan; Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly play Penelope and Michael Longstreet) decide the best way to remedy the situation is for both couples to meet in person and talk it out. But when their face-to-face goes from civil to sour, the Longstreets and Cowens flash their claws and berate each other on everything from parenting techniques to animal cruelty.

If you enjoy listening to people air their dirty laundry to the point of sick fascination, “Carnage” might produce enough snarky attitude to allow you overlook phony characters at their worst. Maybe that’s the point. Just because I couldn’t relate to these whiny parents who drink expensive Scotch, have out-of-print Oskar Kokoschka books in their bourgeois apartment, and use words like “conciliating” and “upbraided” in everyday conversation, doesn’t meant there aren’t some out there who will. There’s supposed to be an uncomfortable dark humor behind their snobbery, but as the quarreling continues and goes off on tangents, it gets less and less interesting. Despite the consistent rhythm Polanski is able to pull off in this contrived chamber piece, I kept hoping there might be a gas leak somewhere in the kitchen. Get halfway through the 80-minute “Carnage” and you’ll feel like you’ve earned some quiet time.

Now, I admit, I’ve only seen a handful of public theater versions of the play on YouTube, but I’m convinced this is one of those instances where a film adaptation was an ill-fated idea right from the start. Even the simple mechanics of the production don’t make sense in movie form. On stage there is nowhere to run and hide, but in Polanski’s take there are countless moments when the chaos would come to an end if someone just said good-bye and meant it.

“What the hell are we doing here?”Nancy asks well past the point of no return. A better question would’ve been, “How many times have we walked back into this apartment for more coffee?”

While a lot of the material is grating, the performances (even the miscast and sometimes overly-aggressive Foster) are just as proficient as the 11 Oscar nominations and four wins between the foursome would lead you to believe. The standout is Waltz who plays his father character with a menacing twinkle in his eye. He knows how silly all this is, but he’s still waiting for someone else to get the joke. If “Carnage” gets under your skin, however, the last thing you’ll want to figure out is why a cultural comparison between Ivanhoe and John Wayne is supposed to be clever.

Call it Oscar grubbing if you want, but it’s not Meryl Streep’s fault that she’s so damn talented. Well, technically, it kind of is.

Still, when it was announced Streep would play former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a film that would cover the British politician’s life and career, it was almost guaranteed she would be a shoe-in for a record 17th Academy Award nomination unless something disastrous happened along the way. As Streep performances go, you can’t do much better than what she does with “The Iron Lady.” As biopics go, however, the film feels like someone is giving a history lesson using a set of sketchy CliffsNotes. While it certainly has the opportunity to be an inspirational take on one woman’s groundbreaking contribution to a nation, it instead transforms Thatcher into a tragic character with limited emotional trajectory.

While Streep’s presence makes a deep impression on the acting front, Thatcher’s does not from a narrative aspect. Like Leonardo DiCaprio in “J. Edgar” earlier this awards season, the mammoth-sized lead role overshadows what turns out to be a well-intended and compassionate — but ultimately misguided and uninspired — reflection on such an influential individual. Constructed through flashbacks, some of which come from the frail mind of Thatcher (who is introduced to audiences as a senile old lady advised not to leave her house alone anymore), it’s difficult to see why screenwriter Abi Morgan (“Shame”) makes these twilight years the base of the script. Thatcher constantly forgets she is no longer prime minister and hallucinates that her deceased husband Denis (Jim Broadbent) is not only alive and well but just as charming as he was when she first met him after graduating from Oxford. Alexandra Roach plays the young, opinionated Thatcher to a tee.

As the story continues through Thatcher’s rise through Parliament from Education Secretary to Leader of the Opposition, director Phyllida Lloyd (“Mamma Mia!”) and Morgan are not able to grasp the larger-than-life events and concepts that mark Thatcher’s legacy. Reference to the Falklands War in 1982 is reduced to stock footage and a couple of scenes featuring Thatcher in a war room possibly playing Stratego.

Despite the flaws in the script, Streep, as in her performance as Julia Child in 2009′s “Julie & Julia,” immerses herself inside her character with attention paid to the faintest of details. It’s scary how deeply Streep melds into Thatcher. Unfortunately, she’s really the only major asset here.