People hate him ... for no reason?

This message has been deleted by an administrator

I do think Josh Hartnett has a strong hatedom, but I am not sure if it's unjustified. Let's face it, the hype was really strong in the early 2000s, without the guy landing a single good role. All the popularity he got, was based on his physical appearance, or, to be precise, on the fact teenage girls were crazy about him.

Furthermore, gossip columns were full of his affairs with famous beauties, which carried on in later years. These things combined have made Josh pretty annoying to many people.

In other words, I understand people who are annoyed by him.

But I don't think it's Josh's fault. The hype simply got out of hand at one point, a few bad decisions (Pearl Harbor, for example), and gossip articles and there you go. But Josh himself never encouraged rumors about him and his sexual escapades. Also, it's pretty clear he wasn't really crazy about the whole "heartthrob who can't act" image, so it's not like he ever encouraged the hype. He even got away from Hollywood at one point to escape it. So I don't think the guy wanted to annoy us with his constant presence; media and producers wanted to cash in his appeal to teenagers.

Now, the more important thing: his acting abilities (or lack thereof). People probably don't remember, but his earliest performances actually gained positive reviews from critics, particularly The Virgin Suicides. Also, O (which was released in 2001, but filmed earlier, and was one of his earliest roles)- he gave a strong performance. In short, before the hype, he was considered a promising young actor, not a talentless pretty boy.

And then the hype came, and, well... We all know that part of the story. His acting circa 2001 does tend to be quite uninspired, like he really didn't want to be there. But there's more to his acting, and it's proved in his mature projects, after the hype has died out.

I'm talking about the smaller, indie films, which, sadly, majority of audience never saw: Mozart and the Whale, August, Lucky Number Slevin, I Come With the Rain. All good performances.

I mean, he'll never be Brando or anything, but he's proved to be a decent actor. He still needs to land a role in a serious, successful film to be recognized, but he's not talentless.

However, there's still prejudice about him being just a pretty face that can't act. So yes, many people are disappointed when they see he's in a movie, prior to watching it. Some find him so annoying that they claim he's ruined particular film, even if he was decent, even good in his role (Lucky Number Slevin, for example). So give the guy some credit.

Unaware of the hate? But it's everywhere. Just check out this board. Or, even better, boards for his movies (or reviews of his movies on IMDB). No matter how good his performance was, there will always be a thread: "he ruined the film for me!", and reviews full of "he can't act". And that's just IMDB, for a start.

He's never really fallen out of clubs drunk or acted a fool, has he?

I don't follow gossip that closely, but as far as I know, he was never involved in a serious incident (he's never been arrested or anything). But there are always gossip stories about him dating a different girl every night, romancing all of his co-stars, or even receiving oral sex in a public bathroom. That sort of things. He never denies those rumors (except that one time he denied, and even sued over a false story about a sex tape).

I never got Leo DiCaprio's appeal. He's sure not my type, and as an actor, he's not bad, but he's not as great as people claim him to be. He was amazing in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", but he's mediocre in most of his films. I think he's got the same problem as Josh: the quality of his acting drops significantly when he's in the spotlight.

Well said! I just need to add that people hate him cos his popular releases were crap. The Black Dahlia, for instance, was a total mess, and Pearl Harbor, although it's his claim to fame, so I wouldn't put it on the stand with the other movie. However, most people despise Michael Bay movies, so consequently Pearl Harbor and Josh are interrelated and that immediately shut people off about Harnett. If people would forget about that they would discover that he's a good enough, capable actor. Movies like Wicker Park, August, and Lucky Number Slevin prove that Hartnett can carry a movie by himself and manage to make it enjoyable. I would also like to point out Sin City, granted his role was pretty small, but he was one of the memorable characters of the movie.

Josh is a wonderful actor, he just needs to prove himself a bit more. I don't think it's up to him as most of the movies nowadays are crap anyways, so it's not entirely his fault. If he could somewhat follow the footsteps of Jake Gyllenhaal he might be taken seriously. Even though Jake has done a few crappy movies himself, but unlike Josh people actually love him.

~ nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it ~

I agree. But I must say Josh's main problem was always the fact that, while women were crazy about him, men refused to identify with him.

I don't know why, but it is one of the main reasons he's not liked. It's not as much about his acting talent: after all, we all know there are many actors who can't act but are liked for some reason.

But guys simply hate Josh. I don't know if it's something about him, or because women were so crazy about him (just look at this board: there are several women claiming Josh is their "ideal man"). Maybe the guys were jealous and are unable to see Josh's appeal (after all, it's not like girl can get Megan Fox's appeal and are ready to identify with her).

So, I don't know if it's jealousy or something else, but men simply refuse to identify with Josh Hartnett. But it's not the end of the world: if he's smart, he can use this to his own advantage, by choosing more challenging, complex roles, and, dare to say, unsympathetic characters. I think he plays psycho characters quite well, so he should stick to it.

He's not as bad in "hero cop" roles as some people claim, but if guys don't want to identify with him, it's all in vain. So he should stay away from that. Also, skip romantic leads. He needs different kind of roles.

His best performances were in the movies where he was either psycho, emotionless, a major *beep* or tormented. And his worst, in popular movies where he's an action or a romantic lead. Just think about it:

In 40 Days and 40 Nights, he was wooden and confused and not funny at all. Plus, the film was offensive and stupid beyond words.
In the Black Dahlia, he was ok (I don't understand why people hated his performance so much), but men refused to identify with him, so it failed. Plus, the movie was a total mess.
In Pearl Harbor, he seemed confused, embarrassed and like he's not trying at all (though in his defense the script was so cheesy that not laughing at your lines probably demanded a great effort).

Now compare that to his best performances:

In O, he was a psychopath. A great early role; he really proved he's talented.
In Mozart and the Whale, his character has a problem expressing his emotions (to say the least). His best performance so far.
In Slevin... Well, we all know that one. The way the lack of emotion (such as fear) played well in this one.
In I Come With the Rain, he is deeply damaged and disturbed. Another excellent performance.
In August, he plays this egoistic *beep* and he's so great and convincing and you simply want to hate him.

I don't know, I'm a guy and I think Josh is awesome. But that could be just because I'm an aspiring actor and his style is close to what mine is, or at least what I perceive it to be.

I'll admit, as an actor, Benicio del Toro is actually closest to what I want to perform like, and what I'd like to think already perform like, but Josh Hartnett is also an inspiration (which frustrates me that the two of them were axed from "The Rum Diary." I'd love to see them on the screen together ["Sin City" don't count, yo]). So maybe my input is wholly invalidated.

I disagree with you though, I think he's fairly decent in lead roles, "The Black Dahlia," "Black Hawk Down," "30 Days of Night," and I actually thought he himself was good in "40 Days and 40 Nights," despite the film being... euh. And would "The Faculty" count? It was basically "The Thing" in a high school, I felt he had the Kurt Russell character, and I thought he did well.

On the run from Johnny Law...Ain't no trip to Cleveland.

I don't know, I'm a guy and I think Josh is awesome. But that could be just because I'm an aspiring actor and his style is close to what mine is, or at least what I perceive it to be.

If you're an actor then I don't know if you can count as an average moviegoer and if your identification with the character is the same as the one I was talking about.

I'll admit, as an actor, Benicio del Toro is actually closest to what I want to perform like

Well, Benicio is a better actor, that's for sure. But Josh is not as bad as some people claim him to be!

I disagree with you though, I think he's fairly decent in lead roles,

I never said he was bad in lead roles, just that men seem to refuse to identify with him, and you sure need that in a movie like the Black Dahlia.

Ah, I understand now. I agree then. But I wonder why most men (I'm trying to avoid being perceived as sexist by using the adjective "most") don't make that identification? It's can't be a conscious refusal... would it be the idea of a one-time heart throb being in a more masculine role is a subconscious threat to their male dominance? Ah, heck, I'm not qualified to make any psychological/sociological speculations.

And yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. I look at characters more from a "How could this possibly be performed and how would I personally do it?" standpoint than from a "How do I feel about the character?" sort of one. So I'll disqualify myself from being counted, lol.

On the run from Johnny Law...Ain't no trip to Cleveland.