It is a tortuous comparison because I can seriously not think of anyone who is like Paul in the US and it doesn't help the reader at all to mention Tom Hanks when trying to understand who Paul is, as it completely disregards his other roles in the industry for which Paul is equally known.

I took the Tom Hanks thing to refer simply to their respective status: Paul is (highly arguably) the most famous and successful actor north of the border at present, as well as being one of its most versatile; but there the comparison ends really - it certainly wasn't referring to a physical similarity at all. Paul is far edgier as an actor, has way more gravitas and charisma and takes on more interesting projects in my view -and I like Tom Hanks, don't get me wrong, but he hardly dings my bell and I am rarely entranced by him although I appreciate his work.

And Paul as Forrest Gump? I can't believe for a minute that Paul would take on that pile of steaming sacchariny crap. Aside from a few mis-steps, he appears to have a very finely-tuned crapometer in terms of his career.
Of course the other big difference between the two actors is this: Paul has actually done really good work post-1995.