I mean you can clearly tell that's not Tom Hanks, the emotional connection is lost since it's clearly a different actor altogether. Is it that hard to put make up on Tom Hanks to make him look older? Hanks is a great actor, i'm sure he could pull of an old person without much difficulty. Really odd decision.
shareI agree 100%. On the DVD they show some makeup tests with him in the age prosthetics. Hanks is doing his first scene with Paul's lady friend at the nursing home in which he's getting ready to tell the story. There are two different old man looks the makeup people came up with for Hanks and admittedly neither of them are terribly convincing. One of them is terrible, the other isn't too bad, though you can still tell it's makeup, IMO.
However, Hanks' performance perfectly makes up(!) for it. I think that would have been the lesser evil, as it were. But Frank Darabont said that because they weren't satisfied with the age prosthetics on Hanks they went with the other actor, which was a bad decision.
After watching the makeup tests, I don't rate Hanks' performance or the makeup.
Glad they just cast an old person.
Lots of people look different in old age so I don't mind.
I've not recognised people I know when they change age groups (teen to adult, 30s to 40s), it happens, people change a lot.
This detail didn't bother me. There is such a large gap between 44-years-old and 108-years-old. People can often look quite differently.
In addition, the main narrative in 1944 is a flashback, told from the 108-year-old man's memory. Hanks' appearance might have been how he remembers his appearance in 1944, not necessarily how he actually looked.
The make-up route always looks silly. You can always tell it's just some guy in his thirties, forties that are make-uped to look old. It would have looked even more ridiculous with Tom Hanks, cause you really know exactly what he looks like.
Fifty years is a lot to change a man. I didn't find it immersion breaking at all.