I am trying to understand what is wrong with Tom Hanks' hair lately, but haven't been able to put my finger on it. Last I remembered, he didn't have much left and it looked pretty normal. Now there's this kind of John Travolta in "Pulp Fiction" weave. There are lush bangs but then there is this kind of burn victim thing going on which I feel awful for saying but I feel worse when I see that follicular charade, especially now that he's done with his movie and he's still keeping that thing instead of taking it behind the log cabin and puttin' it down with one bullet in the roots. That hair needs some frontier justice is what I'm saying. I just don't understand why actors come to the conclusion that "this part I am playing needs for me to have hair." How did Sean Connery benefit from that white toupee in "The Hunt For Red October?" We didn't know it was him? That fucker's been bald since after his first Bond and no one cares! I love him just the way he is. Who told him to suddenly sprout hair—like the audience is suddenly going to think: "Who is that? Looks a little like...naaah, it's Craig Ferguson." At least Connery got rid of the hairpiece when he was done, but Tom Hanks is sporting his, which is a completely different texture of hair. He used to have curls in "Punchline" and shit like that. Now all of a sudden he's got this Jackie Chan "Rush Hour" do. It is so distracting as a movie-goer to see the fake hair. I can't suspend my disbelief and say to myself, "Tom is that character," when he's got those goddamm swooshy bangs flopping around in the wind like epileptic pigeon wings. Plus I feel bad for all the balding guys out there that are going to adopt one of these things from the fake hair shelter, thinking it's going to be their ticket to getting laid more. Tom, the truth is, you looked better at the end of "Philadelphia" with like 2 t-cells left than with that sideburn-less feathered Brothers McMullet. Remove it. Stomp it. Bury it.
|