adam2 says on 18/Mar/10
Josh, Clint WAS 6-4. Wayne was six-three prime.3

josh says on 16/Mar/10
duke and clint were both 6'4 peak.

EdgarRivero. says on 15/Mar/10
The Duke was 6ft 4in, but he had the longest yet masive uper bodi of i ever see, seriusly, in fact, you only neet the picture of hin in his birthday pary with clint eastwood and you can see , the similar height of the tow and of cure, there is rock hudson.

adam2 says on 15/Mar/10
Duke Wayne was 6-3 prime.

Anonymous says on 15/Mar/10
Clint 6ft3 peak, now 6ft1 if he stands up stright 6ft2.

Shaun says on 14/Mar/10
Watching 6'4" Rik Van Nutter earlier in Thunderball. His frame and hair reminded me very much of Eastwood. I can spot a 6'4" on screen when I see one.

Shaun says on 14/Mar/10
And if Marvin was 5'11" then John Wayne was 6'1.5" as he had 2.5 inches on Marvin. Who here honestly thinks John Wayne was 6'1.5"?

Aleks says on 14/Mar/10
I'm confused, he was actually taller than Jeff Daniels in Blood Work.

Vegas says on 13/Mar/10
some recent photos i thought people would be interested in

with freeman Click Here
with 6'4 golf listed dustin johnson Click Here

Anonymous says on 12/Mar/10
if soul was 5ft11 then marvin was 5ft11 because there was the same hight difference between the two of them with clint.I still think 6ft2 is to low for clint 6ft3 is about right.

filmfan says on 12/Mar/10
D193, thanks for the comment about my having a crush on macho film stars. Perhaps it is something I will comtemplate when I get home from my job in the florist. I still think Clint was about 6'4'' and to my eyes he always looked it until the last decade.

Mark says on 11/Mar/10
the guy who played Wolf looks a hair taller than Eastwood, and is listed as 6'3

Mark says on 11/Mar/10
Any celeb mag I read in the 70's listed Soul as 5'11.No way he ever looked 6'1.

Mark says on 11/Mar/10
Soul is 5'11

D193 says on 10/Mar/10
Somebody else has posted a comment as D193. It's the comment dated 09 March about David Soul being 5'11. Wasn't posted by me. I think this was the first such posting by this contributor/imposter.

Shaun says on 10/Mar/10
LOL Parker you're so slow. If you would care to look back several posts the Humphreys thing was discussed. Humphreys was/is 5'8".

Parker says on 10/Mar/10
I agree with you Danimal. Looks to have lost a solid 3 inches. I've read somewhere the interviewer with him here (John Humphreys) is 5'9/5'10
Click Here

D193 says on 9/Mar/10
Filmfan - like Shaun, you suggest that Clint could not lie about his height. Again I pose the question do you know Clint personally ?
Is there such a thing as a 'Clint-crush'/'Action-hero crush' - maybe you suffer from it?
Yes, Clint is a movie toughguy. Claiming the perceived 'big dude' height of 6'4 added to his characters. Doesn't mean his 6'2 wasn't inflated for Hollywood.

josh says on 9/Mar/10
after seeing that picture with matt damon who is around 5'8, i would say he is probably no more than this height nowadays.

EdgarRivero. says on 9/Mar/10
The question now is not if he was 6ft 4in, the real question is what height is now?, personally i think is posible 6ft 1in.

D193 says on 9/Mar/10
David Soul is 5'11".

Danimal says on 8/Mar/10
Parker says on 7/Mar/10
If anyone has any doubts about Eastwoods peak height go and watch Magnum Force, particularly the shooting scene with Robert Urich,Tim Matheson and David Soul listed at 6'2,6'2 and 6'1 respectively - Eastwood was a least 2 inches taller than all of them. 6'4 peak for sure.

Better yet, he has a SHOWER seen with 6'3"-6'4" Bruce Fisher in Escape From Alcatraz and is the EXACT same height as him when he stood fully straight. So, even if he was down to 6'3" by 1979 (he was 50 years old then), he was SURELY close to if not a FULL 6'4" in a few years earlier... I still say he has lost minimum 3 1/4" since his peak (MAX 6'0 3/4").

Tony G. says on 8/Mar/10
Check out Clint Eastwood standing next to 6'1" David Soul. Clint looks about 3" taller than David.

Click Here

adam2 says on 8/Mar/10
I do believe that Clint was 6-4 and Wayne 6-3. But D193, keep on posting and making more arguments!

Shaun says on 7/Mar/10
D193 I said there is a possibility he was 6'3", although more evidence adds up to him being 6'4". But I do think a flat 6'2" in his prime is too low.

Shaun says on 7/Mar/10
Look at the first picture which would have been taking in mid 1950s when Eastwood was in his mid 20s. Just looks at his feet and legs and now look up at how he looks compared to the windows. I see a legit 6'4" just by his proportions..

Shaun says on 7/Mar/10
I couldn't agree more Edgar, 36 inseam I am also convinced he had. I wear 34 inch inseams and I know a 36 leg when I see one. He for sure had longer legs than I do.

Parker says on 7/Mar/10
If anyone has any doubts about Eastwoods peak height go and watch Magnum Force, particularly the shooting scene with Robert Urich,Tim Matheson and David Soul listed at 6'2,6'2 and 6'1 respectively - Eastwood was a least 2 inches taller than all of them. 6'4 peak for sure.

Here he is sandwiched between 6'2 Lee Marvin(closest to camera) and 6'5 Rock Hudson

Click Here

filmfan says on 7/Mar/10
I agree fully with your comments Shaun. Why would Clint lie about his height and claim to be 6'4'' when he was really only 6'2''. Probably 6'2'' is a better height for an actor anyway as being 'too tall' can make it harder to get the roles. Obviously this only applies to actors who are trying to make it, not big stars like Clint became. Clint looks about 6'4'' in the old movies. Even when cast alongside other tall men like Lee Marvin who was 6'2'' Clint appears tall. This may have already been mentioned but there is a documentary about Eastwood's life that shows clips from his supporting roles when he first appeared in movies. In one he stands next to Rock Hudson for a brief moment. They are fairly similar in height. On this site Hudson's height is also discussed. Nobody argues that he was anything less than 6'4'', some believe he was probably an inch or two taller. Eastwood was about 6'4'' in his prime I have no doubts.

EdgarRivero. says on 6/Mar/10
Clint Eastwood, was clari 6ft 4in in his primer, a tall, lanky man with very lon legs(not regular long legs of 34, a 36 insame for sure), a short uper body even in his prime
Click Here
and in fact his body proportios look very similar with jack palance
Click Here
Only look how short his uper body is and the leg of his legs, jack palance minimun heigh of i can acept is 6ft 3in, if you si the tow had very similar phisic, maybe palance was more muscular, but you can copare and see how similar they look.

D193 says on 6/Mar/10
Shaun, my comments are honest and based on what I see. If you can't see beyond your own argument (or provide valid proof) then you're wasting your time on this site. I didn't compare Clint to Stallone. Read my previous post again - what I said was that we should not merely accept celebrities claimed heights. Stallone claimed 5'10.5. What makes him less honest than Clint. Also, do you know Clint personally or has he not lied in the films you've seen him in. I'm guessing you're not a close friend of Clint so, if you're not his close friend, for you to describe him as 'not a liar' is ignorant. Maybe you will clarify ? From your recent posts you accept that the 'Hollywood' factor inflates heights by 1-2 inches but you suggest this does not apply to Clint - what marks him as different ? On a positive note for me I see you have stated that Clint could indeed have been less than his claimed 6'4. That shows doubt in your mind. I've made some arguments for Clint being 6'2 max. You have failed to persuade me otherwise.
I've already posted on the John Wayne page.

Shaun says on 6/Mar/10
D193 I find your comments ignorant. Eastwood has never given a flying %$$£ about his height and has always slouched. To compare him Stallone is pathetic who every minute of the day is stretched upright in big footwear. Eastwood is not a liar and I do not think he is the type to lie about his height by TWO INCHES. There is a small possibility he was closer to 6'3" but 6'2" is just stupid otherwise why downgrade everybody else by two inches he was taller than There is a tendency in Hollywood to inflate height by 1-1.5 inch rather than 2 or more. What about John Wayne? I personally thinik he was the same height as Eastwood although many claims Wayne was also 6'2".

Heightcritique says on 6/Mar/10
In the following photo you can see clearly that Clint was just an inch shorter than 6'5" Rock Hudson and the same same height or a bit taller than 6'4" John Wayne:

Click Here

Here is another photo where Hudson is shown an inch taller than the Duke, and Clint about 2"+ taller than 6'2" Lee Marvin:

Click Here

Here is another shot of Clint and Marvin showing a 3" height difference:

Click Here

The evidence clearly shows a 6'4" man at peak height. I have not seen any photo of a young Clint showing less than this height, which makes it difficult to believe the claim 6'.5" height now at 80, which I do not see in the photographic and footage evidence I found and provided herein.

Here is another footage of Clint in 2010 walking in San Francisco Airport while filming the 'Hereafter' where the only person taller than him is his 6'3" bodyguard walking in front of him: Click Here clearly a 6'2" tall man walking and slouching...

D193 says on 4/Mar/10
So Shaun if Clint says 6'4 we must believe him !! And believe Stallone is 5'10.5 because he said he was? I thought this was a site for debating heights of celebrities, not merely accepting what they claim.
You make it sound as if the role he played in Rawhide must only have been played by a 6'4 actor - was the exec a height/measuring expert ? Maybe the exec merely wanted a tall actor and Clint's 6'2 suited. Maybe the exec wanted specific and exact heights for each role ? Unlikely. All of us can claim any height we wish to friends/strangers but would many be interested in arguing our claim if they felt it was a little inflated ? Maybe you'll tell me you went to school with Clint, brought your measuring tape and measured him regularly ? Er, if anyone is asking I'm 9'6 in the morning and 4'2 at night. Take it as gospel, lol.

Shaun says on 3/Mar/10
Might I also point out that Eastwood reached 6'4" in late high school and stated there was only one boy taller than him in the school at 6'5". BEFORE he began acting he was asked his height by a film executive and stated 6'4" many times.In fact the reason why he got the job for Rawhide was he met an executive in a canteen and the first thing he asked was, "how tall exactly are you" he said 6'4" and immediately got an interview because the exec was impressed. I don't recall the exec going, mm I think we'll pass, you don't look 6'4" and I don't employ liers...

Shaun says on 3/Mar/10
OK then 6'2" for Eastwood peak. 6'2" for George Kennedy. 6'0.5" for Charlton Heston, 6'1" for Morgan Freeman, 6'1.5" for Michael Moriarty, 5'11" for Ronald Reagan, 6'0 for Lee van Cleef, 5'11.5" for Jeff Bridges...

D193 says on 2/Mar/10
6'2 is no joke. I've seen probably all Clint films and, like Shaun, was amazed when I first heard/read Clint was 6'4. I didn't believe it then and, having paid attention to his films and height since, do not believe it now. What is a joke is Shaun claiming Clint was 6'4/6'4+ because 1)he's a full head taller than some actor/store owner whose height has not been checked or mentioned. 2)he's verging on being as tall as a prop door frame 3)his legs appear unfeasibly long - has anybody considered that his torso may be unfeasibly short ?
Danimal, it couldn't be much clearer in Coogan's Bluff. He wasn't wearing shoes, he stood behind 5'9 susan Clark and was only three inches taller. It makes sense that she was wearing shoes in that scene, otherwise Clint would have been 6'0, which I don't believe. Throughout the film he was not greatly taller than Clark and gave a 6'2 max impression, as he has done in all his films to 1982's Foxfire. Keep rolling those eyes - downwards for Clint.

Shaun says on 2/Mar/10
Watched Fistful of Dollars last night. 6'2" is a joke for Eastwood. He looked very lanky in it. A 6'2" guy even rake thin would never look as tall as Eastwood did back in the Dollars trilogy. See the scene where Eastwood and the store owner are watching from the shop doorway as Marisol or whatever the blue eyed attractive woman is called in it and Jesus are being traded. Eastwood is a full head taller than the store owner and verging on being as tall as the door frame. Also look at his legs in those skinny jeans. Those are the legs of a 6'4"-6'6" guy, what I'd imagine are 36 inch inside leg jeans...

Terry says on 1/Mar/10
D193 well known trick in films is to stand actors on boxes to equalise discrepanacies in height. Perhaps Clarke was on a box?

Danimal says on 1/Mar/10
D193 says on 28/Feb/10
Watching Coogan's Bluff. Just saw a scene where Clint is standing barefoot next to Susan Clark in her apartment. You can tell he was barefoot cos he had his feet on her coffee table before he stood up and he picked up his boots (in his stockinged feet) when he was leaving the apartment. The top of Clark's head is 3 inches from the top of Clint's hair. I didn't see if she wore shoes during the scene but she wore regular shoes as they went to the apartment. Clark is listed on this site as 5'9. If she had 2 inch heels that put her at 5'11. Add the 3 inch difference and you get 6'2 for Clint- with his big hair. Film was made in 1968 so Clint was probably peak height. For me, further proof that Clint was not 6'4 - unless somebody can say Clark was 5'11 or wore lifts. At no point in the film did Clint 'tower' over people in the way a legit 6'4 barefoot person who is wearing boots would.

You're right, he was never over 6'2" (rolling eyes). Now watch his other 40 movies where he looks every bit of 6'4" where we can SEE FOOTING and then come back on here and post something else.

D193 says on 28/Feb/10
Watching Coogan's Bluff. Just saw a scene where Clint is standing barefoot next to Susan Clark in her apartment. You can tell he was barefoot cos he had his feet on her coffee table before he stood up and he picked up his boots (in his stockinged feet) when he was leaving the apartment. The top of Clark's head is 3 inches from the top of Clint's hair. I didn't see if she wore shoes during the scene but she wore regular shoes as they went to the apartment. Clark is listed on this site as 5'9. If she had 2 inch heels that put her at 5'11. Add the 3 inch difference and you get 6'2 for Clint- with his big hair. Film was made in 1968 so Clint was probably peak height. For me, further proof that Clint was not 6'4 - unless somebody can say Clark was 5'11 or wore lifts. At no point in the film did Clint 'tower' over people in the way a legit 6'4 barefoot person who is wearing boots would.

maximus meridius says on 27/Feb/10
If clint eastwood is now down to 6ft 0 1/2in that means james garner is now down to 5ft 10 1/2in both of them were 6ft 4in and 6ft 3in in there prime and went to down to 6ft 1in and 5ft 11in.

Shaun says on 26/Feb/10
I didn't say for sure he was 5'8" for sure 40 years ago. He could have been 5'2" then for all I know but somebody said he was listed then at 5'8". And in meeting him on the Marks and Spencer food tills several times still looked in that sort of range. Completely normal height for a guy in his 60s. But regardless of Humphries I've never met Eastwood so I do not know for sure exactly how tall he was at peak. I can only imagine Eastwood standing there from that video clip besides Humphries and that he would look towering.

Shaun says on 26/Feb/10
Not everybody loses a lot of height.Humphries is not THAT old either, younger than Eastwood by at least ten years. I think Humphries is probably in his mid to late 60s by now. All I can recall is that he looked completely a normal height, very similar to many men his age. It is impossible to gauge whether he was 5'7.5" or 5'8" etc but you would not call him short. He looked bang on average to me for his age. But way above average in personality and charisma.

Danimal says on 25/Feb/10
Shaun, I'm not doubting you met the man, but to say he was 5'8" 40 years ago and was 5'8" when you met him is hard to swallow.

Shaun says on 25/Feb/10
Yeah I agree Filmfan. But all the same he might be approaching 80 but he is still unlike virtually all other men that age even now. I bet he is still fitter and stronger than a lot of 60 year old men. I can understand the 6'2" barefoot claimers. A legit 6'4" barefoot really is VERY tall and most people in Hollywood do inflate their height by 1-2 inches. I must admit when I first heard Clint was 6'4" I thought wow really? I had also thought he was around 6'2" but in looking at him in his prime he was close to it for real I think...

filmfan says on 24/Feb/10
I think that it's hard for many of us to take in the fact that Clint Eastwood is an elderly man these days, 80 yrs of age or thereabouts. In our minds he will always be the Man with No Name or Dirty Harry. Clint isn't 35 anymore or even 55. I don't think it unfeasible that he has lost a number of inches due to ageing. Tall people are prone to back problems from what I understand.

EdgarRivero. says on 23/Feb/10
Is very hard loss 4 inches in height, but not imposible, the brother of my grandfather, was a solid 6ft2 in his yount, theres a picture when he my dad, and his dad are togheter, he has in that picture militar posture, an looks like 1 or 2 inches taler than his youngher brother, and he was in his lates 70s, but when i meet him(nearly 16 years lather) he was barely thaller than my dad, and my dad was 5ft10, is posible, clint maybe is healty but he lost height, but there is no dubt to see, he was 6ft4 in his prime.

Shaun says on 23/Feb/10
Neeson was more 1.5 inches taller than Eastwood.

Terry says on 23/Feb/10
D193 There were a couple of scenes where both actors were side on to the camera & both looked the same height, with no advantage to either in terms of camera angle. Also, in the meat factory, Eastwood was doing his usual "slouchy walk" which makes hime look much shorter. His spine is very bent & he clearly had to force himself to stand up straight, something he can no longer do

Shaun says on 23/Feb/10
D193 how tall do you think Morgan Freeman is then? Eastwood was taller than him back in 1992 in Unforgiven. If Eastwood was 6'2" Freeman was barely 6'1". If so that puts people like Brad Pitt at 5'9" etc...

Shaun says on 23/Feb/10
D193. Dead Pool was 1988. In my view Eastwood had already lost an inch by that time age of nearly 60. He looked 6'3" next to Reagan in late 80s too. Neeson was close to 6'5" back then. I honestly did not think Neeson ever looked over 2 inches taller. The way I see it in 1988 was Neeson 6'4.5" and Eastwood 6'3".

Shaun says on 23/Feb/10
Except to my knowledge 6'3" guys don't usually go about attaching their height to their name and think "Hey I'm tall, big deal....". Most 6'3" + guys I know are always stooping and are not overly excited about being over 190...

D193 says on 22/Feb/10
Watched the Dead Pool last night and noticed three things:
1. Clint always stood on the 'camera' side and closer to the camera when in shots with Liam Neeson. This gave the illusion that Neeson was not much taller than Clint, and is probably why many claim to see only a one inch advantage to Neeson
2. Neeson had 2+ inches on Eastwood in a scene where they walk through a meat factory. Watch them when they turn and walk towards the camera. Neeson also appears to slouch quite a lot.
3. In many street and crowd scenes,Clint did not 'tower' over passers by in the same way a genuine barefoot 6'4 would.
For me, still 6'2 max/peak

Shaun says on 22/Feb/10
Oh sorry Hugh I thought you calling me a liar like Danimal. Sorry, I see you were responding to "The Truth". If you really are 6'3" and 250 pounds fair enough but that is one heck of a solid dude....

Shaun says on 22/Feb/10
You would expect him to be around 6'6" in cowboy boots anyway but he mostly only looked 6'5" in boots max to me.

Shaun says on 22/Feb/10
Heightcritique. I know he did. Sene that film many times. The tallest I've ever seen Eastwood look is in 7/13 of that video when he is standing at the counter in the store and is twice the height of the storekeeper who says about Josey Wales but doesn't recognise him. Eastwood looks 6'6" in that scene. He also looked close to 6'6" in one or two scenes in GBU with Tuco before the cannon fire standing on the chair and when they get off their horses before the civil war scene later on.

Shaun says on 22/Feb/10
Nobody said Eastwood was close to 200cm. Just that he was a legit 6'4". What would you know about truth Hugh. You've been lying about being 6'3" and 250 pounds since you started on here.

The Truth says on 19/Feb/10
As I told you Clint Eastwood was an excepcionally tall men 10 years ago. No less than 1,95 meters, or for the anglo-saxon readers a size equal or superior to 6 foot 5 inches. No less believe me. I was surprised when I saw him that he looked much older than on TV. His air was totally white. But really an abnormal tall men.

Hugh 190-192cm says on 18/Feb/10
The truth, all I can say is you're not speaking truthfully. Eastwood was never over 6ft 4, let alone close to 200cm!

Shaun says on 18/Feb/10
Danimal says on 17/Feb/10
You didn't need to make that up man.

I didn't (need to make that up) genuinely because I didn't. I don't have to prove myself to you. Why would I lie? What would I have to gain personally? To prove a point? I've proved my points hundreds of times on here Danimal and do not need to pretend I've met people unless I really have. And no I didn't think much about his height when I met him several times in around 2006 but I recall he was about average height for an old man. May have been 5'7" I don't know but trying to recall facing him on the food till he was around 5'8". Yes he may have lost height over the years but in trying to match up the guy I saw compared to him back then interviewing Eastwood and imagining him standing in front of me Eastwood would have had to have been 6'4" at least, especially if Humphries was taller back then.

Shaun says on 18/Feb/10
I am appalled actually Danimal that you would think that. I NEVER claim to have met people unless I really have met them. I saw that clip ages ago and I didn't even recognise who it was. When somebody said it was John Humphies a while back the name twigged and I looked him up and it is the guy I've served several times. I recognised him as that guy who presented the recent mastermind shows. He looks radically different now but still has the same easy going persona.

Shaun says on 18/Feb/10
How dare you insult me Danimal. I DID NOT MAKE THAT UP. Why would I make that up? I've served Humphries and his partner when they are down in Cardiff shopping several times. And from what I recall he was an extremely pleasant man and looked about pretty much average height AS AN OLD MAN at around 5'8". So he may have been even taller back in the 1960s. Oh for God's sake do you honestly think I would have claimed to have met him just to back up my theory that Eastwood was 6'4". Don't be stupid. I've only met three celebrities in my life. It is not as if I am Frank2 claiming to met everyone. I am offended Danimal. You are a nasty piece of work.

Heightcritique says on 18/Feb/10
In this photo dated November 2009, Clint is at least an inch and a half taller than 6'1" Quentin Tarantino: Click Here which indicates Clint's actual height at 6'2"+

Heightcritique says on 18/Feb/10
Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
If Eastwood has his head up and straight and they stood side by side he is virtually a head taller. Looks a clear 8 inches. Agreed James/Danimal/Height critique?

Shaun: I don't think anyone can argue against that statement. Clint looks 6'4" in that interview (stop at frame 0:04): Click Here

Generally he looks taller than all other other actors in all his movies but he looks particularly extra tall in the movie 'The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)': Click Here

I think his peak height is around 6'4" without a doubt. I think the real question is how tall he is now at age 80. The recent photos of him and Freeman indicate a 6'2"+ when he stands in good posture:

Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here

In the the clip I posted where he is filming the 'Hereafter' there is a frame where he stands next to the Panavision camera crane where he looks like a giant compared to it and to the public around him. If he stands only 6' 0.5" in that frame then I will argue firmly that he is not in San Francisco but he is in Hobbittown...(see frame 0:47 - 0:52): Click Here

Danimal says on 17/Feb/10
Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
And for the record I know Humphries is in the legit 5'8" range as he is one of the few celebrities I've ever met. I served him and his wife in a store I worked in a few years back and he was around 5 inches shorter than I am (strong 6'1").

SO, Humphries was 5'8" in 1967 and 5'8" when he CONVENIENTLY walked into your store 40 YEARS LATER?????? Okay, you just lost all credibility in my eyes, saying you met him and said he was 5'8" a few years back, meaning he didn't lose any height in 40 YEARS according to you???? You didn't need to make that up man. So many people on here resort to that to prove their point.

James says on 17/Feb/10
Eastwood was 6'4 on a good day in his prime.

The truth says on 17/Feb/10
I saw Mr Clint Eastwwod in Paris, entering the American Bar. He was dressed with a suit and a Hat. Coming out of a black limousine. It was in the years around 1998 or 2000. He was at around 30 meters from me. Whay I can say to you is that my best friend measures 1m92cm, but Clint Eastwood looked like a giant guy to me, even at that distance. I can assure you that at that time, that guy was an exceptionnally tall man. Probably from 1.95 to 2 meters tall.

Hugh (191cm/252lbs) says on 16/Feb/10
At peak it was Eastwood 6ft 3.75 and Heston 6ft 3

Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
If Eastwood has his head up and straight and they stood side by side he is virtually a head taller. Looks a clear 8 inches. Agreed James/Danimal/Height critique?

Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
Folks type in Eastwood 1967 interview on youtube. Pause on 0:01 or watch the first 5 seconds at any point. Keeping in mind Humphries is 5'8", no doubts he is below that, even if you flatten down his big quiff I still see a 6'4" guy. That is roughly how 6'4" looks compared to a guy of Rob's height. Also look at their frames. Eastwood is twice the width too. A lot of people think he is skinny and lanky but he actually has very broad shoulders and is solidly built. Doesn't look as "buff" as Connery did but Eastwood's torso in this clip looks like a 6'4" frame and we know he had the legs of a guy that height too. I cannot see anything under 6'3" in that clip, or 6'4" either.

Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
Folks type in Eastwood 1967 interview on youtube. After watching it are there still any 6'2" prime claimers here? Even if you did not know Humphries height Clint towers here like a 6'2" wouldn't.

Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
And for the record I know Humphries is in the legit 5'8" range as he is one of the few celebrities I've ever met. I served him and his wife in a store I worked in a few years back and he was around 5 inches shorter than I am (strong 6'1").

Shaun says on 16/Feb/10
I could buy 6'3" (190cm) minimum peak for Eastwood. 6'2" is just not true in his prime. He always looked much taller than 6'2" Sean Connery did on screen. I know Connery was much broader and heavier set but Eastwood was lanky in his prime and had those extra two lanky inches which seperate a tall 6'2" from a lanky 6'4". Eastwood had the legs of a man in the 6'4"-6'5" range, you can see that in the modern Robbins pics anyway. I believe he was 6'4" in his prime, nothing more though. Also somebody show D193 the youtube clip of Eastwoods 1967 interview with 5'8" John Humphries. Eastwood towers him by minimum 8 inches. pLease see it. It is ample proof Eastwood was taller than 6'2".

James says on 16/Feb/10
Well I think by the time Line of Fire came Clint Eastwood was defenintly heading towards 6'3 if not already on that mark.

Shaun says on 15/Feb/10
Rob has Heston listed at 6'3". Nobody on his talk page, even the skeptics believe Heston was anything under 6'2" legit. He towered above too many people to be anything less than 6'2". That makes Eastwood minimum 6'3".

Danimal says on 15/Feb/10
henri says on 13/Feb/10
No way he is that short. He has lost two inches, so I think he is 6-2 nowadays.

It amazes me that some people CAN'T accept that someone CAN lose so much height, so they don't want to believe it, so they say it's impossible. It's not what you want to or can or cannot believe. It is what is FACT and his pictures PROVE a DRASTIC height loss. MANY 6'2" people are over an inch taller than him today. He hasn't seen 6'2" for a decade.

Anonymous says on 15/Feb/10
Peck was 6ft3 and hudson was 6ft5 so that makes clint 6ft3.

Anonymous says on 15/Feb/10
D193 watch the igeir sanction clint and george kennady are the same hight its very clear.To me clint and kennady 6ft3 and a half peak.

D193 says on 14/Feb/10
Shaun, Clint was the same height as Donal Sutherland but their claimed heights of 6'4 are just that for me - claimed heights (or Hollywood heights). I always saw a max of 6'2 for both. I googled a pic of Heston/Eastwood and Clint is about one inch taller but Heston seems to have a bowed head. I always saw 6'1/6'1.5 barefoot height for Heston. Heston was about 0.5/1.0 inch shorter than 6'2 Gregory Peck. While I was looking at images I saw a good pic of John Wayne cutting his birthday cake in the company of James Stewart,Michael Caine, Rock Hudson, Clint Eastwood etc. In the pic, Clint is standing sideways and in front of Rock and is shorter - look at their eyelines. If they both stood in line (and Clint flattened his hair) I see a two inch difference. Have a google and see what you think.

James says on 14/Feb/10
Actually he may have lost height becasue he did not consume enough calcium? He always did lookd quite skinny but then again he did apprently do weight lifting.

adam2 says on 14/Feb/10
This fellow has never drank or smoked. He has always stayed slim and fit. Still he has lost at least three inches. Why? Bad luck. Eastwood is a cover boy for fitness magazine.

henri says on 13/Feb/10
No way he is that short. He has lost two inches, so I think he is 6-2 nowadays.

Shaun says on 13/Feb/10
Quite the opposite James. He has never smoked, hasn't drunk hard liquor since 1970 and has been a health nut since he was a young man. Compared to most people in Hollywood, especially his era, Eastwood was like the healthiest man in Hollywood.

RisingForce says on 13/Feb/10
I never compared his height to others in Sudden Impact. I'll have to next time I watch it. I'm pretty sure he had already lost height by The Dead Pool and was more 6'3" by the early 90's. Pale Rider(1985) might also be a good reference for when he started losing height. He could have lost a little height in the 80's since he was already in his 50's.

James, I've heard that Clint has a very healthy lifestyle to this day actually.

Shaun says on 13/Feb/10
Danimal. I thought he looked a little shorter in Sudden Impact than in his earlier Dirty Harry films. He also looked more 6'3" next to Reagan in the 80s.

Shaun says on 13/Feb/10
D193. Why is it Eastwood has been the same height or taller as other 6'4" claimed actors such as Gregory Walcott, Michael Moriarty, George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland in his prime? He was only shorter than Liam Neeson who was likely close to 6'5" peak, 6'4.5" anyway.

Shaun says on 13/Feb/10
D193. Then I suggest you google image Eastwood and Heston. If Eastwood was only 6'2" how was he TALLER than both Heston, Sutherland and Freeman?

James says on 13/Feb/10
Clint Eastwood must have had bad lifestyle habits too loose so much height but then again he is old.

Danimal says on 12/Feb/10
James says on 12/Feb/10
I do think in the early 90's he was more 6'3 (191cm). As people have suggested in late 80's when Deadpool came out he was shorter than 194cm Liam Neeson. Suggesting in the mid to late 80's he probably lost about a cm of height and might have dropped down to 6'3.25-6'3 1/2 and in 1995 for example was probably only 6'2.75.

To be fair though after giving it more thought I don't much trouble believing or his peak height but cetainly nothing over that mark.

I wonder if he was still a FULL 6'4" by 1983? He made his 4th Dirty Harry movie that year. Still looked TALL, but I question if he had lost height by then (along with some hair). I think he may have. Still looked 6'4" in 1979 (Escape From Alcatraz)...

James says on 12/Feb/10
I do think in the early 90's he was more 6'3 (191cm). As people have suggested in late 80's when Deadpool came out he was shorter than 194cm Liam Neeson. Suggesting in the mid to late 80's he probably lost about a cm of height and might have dropped down to 6'3.25-6'3 1/2 and in 1995 for example was probably only 6'2.75.

To be fair though after giving it more thought I don't much trouble believing or his peak height but cetainly nothing over that mark.

D193 says on 11/Feb/10
Shaun, Dylan McDermott's 6'0 listing seems to be based on his bio. Read the comments here, most dispute the listing as overstated. I see 5'10 for Dylan. I see 6'0 for Bridges in Thunderbolt with Clint having two inches on him at most. For me, Clint was 6'2 peak. Never saw Clint with Heston or George Kennedy but reckon Chuck was 6'2 max,Kennedy an inch or two higher.
In relation to Paul Newman, the magic had something to do with time of day, shadows etc. This (apparently!) allowed the measurement to be calculated.

5\'7 guy says on 11/Feb/10
wow its bad to lose so much height
i dont want to be 5' at 70

Shaun says on 10/Feb/10
Maybe more 2.5 inches taller than Jeff Bridges who was 6'1.5" at the time but he was still easily two inches taller than him. So if Eastwood was only 6'2", Bridges was 5'11.5". Now see how Bridges adds up to other people. Mmm. Even today a 5'11.5" Bridges had how many inches on Ewan Mcgregor recently? Nothing about 6'2" peak for Eastwood makes sense. Sorry. Nothing under 190 for Eastwood is credible in his prime.

Shaun says on 10/Feb/10
D193. Dylan McDermott is listed at 6'. Even in 1993 Eastwood had to be close to 6'4". I agree that a few years later he could start looking barely above 6'2" judging by the Arnie pics but even if ALL actors height were inflated I can still not see Eastwood anything under 6'3" at peak. He consistently looked too lanky to only be 6'2". He was around 3 inches taller than Jeff Bridges too in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot who in my view is a strong 6'1". As for your Paul Newman story I have no idea who somebody can take an accurate measurement of somebodys height while walking using "photography magic". If Newman was 5'7", Cruise was even shorter than this which is utter bull. The fact is that a newspaper believed Newman to be much shorter than what he claimed and he challenged them to measure him that he was not a hair under 5'10.


D193. If Eastwood was only 6'2", even in 1993, that would make Dylan McDermott a weak 5'10". Eastwood had what appeared to be an easy 4 inches on his costar in In the Line of Fire. He was noticebally taller than Morgan Freeman even in 1992. Even if you wrongly listed Freeman as low as 6'1", Eastwood would still be minimum 6'3". Eastwood was the same height as George Kennedy, who might I recall towered both 5'11" Leslie Nieslen and 6'1" OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun films and looked a legit 6'4". Eastwood was marginally taller than Donald Sutherland at peak who is also listed at 6'4", he had nearly 2 inches on Charlton Heston in the early 1970s he was always listed at 6'3". If so Heston was only 6'1" and if you back in cinematic history and see pics of Heston next to Marlon Brando etc he TOWERED above them. If Eastwood was 6'2" and Heston barely 6'1" then Brando was 5'6". Might I add that at least 95% of comparison with other actors indicates that Clint was every bit of 6'4" at peak.

Shaun says on 10/Feb/10
D193. If Eastwood was only 6'2", even in 1993, that would make Dylan McDermott a weak 5'10". Eastwood had what appeared to be an easy 4 inches on his costar in In the Line of Fire. He was noticebally taller than Morgan Freeman even in 1992. Even if you wrongly listed Freeman as low as 6'1", Eastwood would still be minimum 6'3". Eastwood was the same height as George Kennedy, who might I recall towered both 5'11" Leslie Nieslen and 6'1" OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun films and looked a legit 6'4". Eastwood was marginally taller than Donald Sutherland at peak who is also listed at 6'4", he had nearly 2 inches on Charlton Heston in the early 1970s he was always listed at 6'3". If so Heston was only 6'1" and if you back in cinematic history and see pics of Heston next to Marlon Brando etc he TOWERED above them. If Eastwood was 6'2" and Heston barely 6'1" then Brando was 5'6". Might I add that at least 95% of comparison with other actors indicates that Clint was every bit of 6'4" at peak.

josh says on 10/Feb/10
ok i could go with 6 ft.5 with him.

Heightcritique says on 10/Feb/10
Adam2: Two points on your comment: (1) Clint's head top is above Robbins's eyebrow which means about 3.5" difference at most and (2) Robbins' stand up hair add an inch to his height.

James says on 10/Feb/10
I told my brother the other day that Clint Eastwood used to be 6ft4 and he was gobsmacked and said to me "No way was he 6ft4 when he was young he was more like 6ft2". He just refused to belive me when I said Eastwood was that tall.

adam2 says on 9/Feb/10
Heightcritique, Clint is clearly 4-5 inches shorter than Robbins in that pic. Robbins could just about look over the top of his head.

Heightcritique says on 8/Feb/10
Shaun and Danimal: good observations. I also notice Clint's long legs compared to Robbin's which evidently show, as you both mentioned, a height loss primarily in his torso, which becomes more dramatic due to his bad posture.

In this photo, notice how Clint's torso was in 1970 as long as his legs

Click Here

I think it can be infer that at peak height Clint was slightly shorter than Robbins using that photo as a reference.

Shaun says on 8/Feb/10
That 1996 pic is weird. Eastwood looks at least an inch taller than Sutherland yet in 1995 he was barely taller than 6'1.5" Arnie.

D193 says on 8/Feb/10
Er, maybe Clint just wears his trousers higher than Robbins ?
I never saw 6'4 for Eastwood. Always seemed more 6'2ish at peak, 6'0 today.
As for the pic with Paul Newman, I recall a story about Newman I heard years ago. Some magazine or newspaper referred to Newman as 5'9. Newman disputed this, saying he was 5'11. The mag/newspaper managed to get a photograph of him on the street and by some 'photography-magic' (I think he was photographed passing a church) was able to measure his height. Turned out he was 5'7. Not sure of the truth of this story but maybe somebody has also heard it ?

Danimal says on 8/Feb/10
Shaun says on 8/Feb/10
Interesting. In that top photo you posted below Heightcritique did anybody notice that Eastwood's legs are even a little longer than Robbin's? His torso is just way shorter which is where he has lost the height, He still has the lanky legs of a 6'4" guy in that picture but the torso of a 5'10" er. Admittedly looks 6'2" compared to Fishburne if he is really close to 6', but 6'1.5" next to Robbins.

Clint lost ALL his height in his UPPER torso. He maintained his long legs. His height loss is clearly in his spine.

Heightcritique says on 8/Feb/10
There is one point missing in the discussion about how tall Clint looks in boots: other actors also wear boots in Cowboys movies...

Continuing the discussion on how Clint looks to other 6'2" actors, here is a 2009 photo with 6'2" Donald Sutherland (peak height 6'3.5") where Clint looks slighly taller: Click Here Thus, Clint height is self-evident...

Here is an old photo of Sutherland at 6'3.5" next to Clint taken in the year:

1996: Click Here

1970: Click Here

Which shows Clint at 6'4" peak height without a doubt.

James says on 8/Feb/10
I might have been wrong actually because if you look at Clint Eastwood and Tim Robbins in 2003 that is roughlty the same height difference between Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum.

Shaun says on 8/Feb/10
Put it this way. If you put Robbins's torso and head on Clint's legs you'd get a guy in the 6'6" - 6'7" range. Agreed?~~~~

Shaun says on 8/Feb/10
Interesting. In that top photo you posted below Heightcritique did anybody notice that Eastwood's legs are even a little longer than Robbin's? His torso is just way shorter which is where he has lost the height, He still has the lanky legs of a 6'4" guy in that picture but the torso of a 5'10" er. Admittedly looks 6'2" compared to Fishburne if he is really close to 6', but 6'1.5" next to Robbins.

James says on 8/Feb/10
Robbins is slouching next to Eastwood

Heightcritique says on 7/Feb/10
James: of all the photos you posted this one has the best angle:

Click Here

Clint's forehead is somewhere above Robbin's forehead which indicate 3" at most since I never heard of a 4" forehead. Similarly, 6'2" Del Toro's forehead is about Robbins eyebrow height: Click Here

Thus, if Robbins is 6'4.5" or 6'5", then Clint has to be between 6'1.5" and 6'2" in the photos you posted.

Shaun says on 7/Feb/10
I meant cowboy boots are supposed to give 2 inches...

Shaun says on 7/Feb/10
Good find James. Yes Eastwood never looked remotely like 6'6" in cowboy boots at peak. He looked around 6'5" to me in the Dollars trilogy in boots. They are supposed to give three inches. I think it possible Eastwood was 6'3.5" peak I never saw him as a strong 6'4". Admittedly compared to guys like Sutherland etc Eastwood at peak did look a little taller so it is not impossible he was 6'4" but I am certain he was over 190 legit at peak, 192cm would seem about right barefoot whihc is very tall. In a lot of those Robbins pics Eastwood is not slouched and has fairly good posture. In some of them with him with good posture I see roughly a 3-3.5 inch difference so if Robbins is 6'4.5" Eastwood would have pulled off a good 6'1" in comparison but where he is slouched he looks exactly 6' flat. You must admit though he looks way taller than Fishburne who is supposed to be near 6'. That is the only weird thing in that Robbins looks easily 6 inches taller than FIshburne. I could still buy a flat 6'1" for Eastwood today with immaculate posture but I think we have him correctly now.

James says on 6/Feb/10
Okay for starters Tim Robbins is a solid 194cm but I doubt he's over 6'5.
Click Here
If anything robbins looks 193cm next to Del Toro there but of course that is slightly too low for Robbins.

In the mystic river pic Clint is closer to the camera giving him an advantage in looking taller next to Tim.

Here is some more pics of Eastwood and 6'4 1/2 Tim Robbins where clint looks 4 inches shorter.

Click Here

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here


You may be asking why Clint looks taller than Laurence Fishburne in the pic well he could be a weak 6footer and Mr.R saw him at 5'11 if I am correct?

Looks 5'11-6' next to 6'1 Cosby
Click Here

As for Clint Eastwood at his peak I think he was about 6'3 1/2 and perhaps not a full 6'4. Kind of like how Harrison Ford may not have been a proper 6'1. And people have pionted out on this site that Clint Eastwood never looked remotely 6'6 in the cowboy boots that he wore in his old western films, more like 6'4-6'5.

With 5'9.5 Newman looks a good 6'3.
Click Here

Hugh (191cm/252lbs) says on 6/Feb/10
At the invictus premiere he looks similiar in height to 188-189cm Morgan Freeman

Heightcritique says on 5/Feb/10
James: Matt Damon is 6' with lifts (i.e. he is the same height as Brad Pitt in lifts; notice Damon's extra generous heel plus probably lifts inside his shoes which should lift him about 3") Click Here
, which makes Clint about 6'2" in the photos you posted.

In regards to the Robbins photo, note that a low angle photo makes whoever is closer to the camera appear taller and whoever is the background shorter. In contrast the photo of Clint and Robbins everyone is critiquing, was taking at a high angle which makes the person standing closer to the camera appear shorter and the one standing furthest taller.

If you want to compare Clint to Robbins this is a reliable photo taken in 2009(follow the line behind Clint's head and follow it across it to Robbin's head; notice how Clint's head top in somewhere in the middle of Robbins' forehead which indicate about 3" difference): Click Here

Still not convinced? here is Clint standing next to Robbins in 2003 during the filming of 'Mystic River' where there is barely 3" in height difference (scroll down to the 3rd photo): Click Here

The clip I posted on 28/Jan/10 shows a 6'2" man which is his height when he stand in better posture. This clip dated 2010 shows his actual height in footage not in a bad angle photos like some here believe is more reliable evidence...

My estimate based on the recent evidence (a few days old) is 6'1" - 6'1.5" in bad posture, and 6'2" in good posture. I reiterate that in order to have a fair height estimate for Clint, one has to consider two variables: posture and age; otherwise the conclusion is a gross error.

RisingForce says on 5/Feb/10
Robbins has more than 2.5" on Forest Whitaker in you picture, James. Robbins is over 6'5".

James says on 5/Feb/10
Is that really a 2.5 inch difference next to 5'10 Matt Damon?
Click Here
Click Here


Here is what a 2.5 inch difference should look like
Click Here

Shaun says on 5/Feb/10
Great pics Danimal. Next to 6'2" Will Smith, Eastwood clearly looks around 6'0.5". Weak 6'1".

Danimal says on 4/Feb/10
To HUGH, you are INSANE to think Clint is 6'1.5"-6'1.75" today. COMPLETELY INSANE.

Clint with Will Smith in January 2007: Click Here

Clint with 6'2" Morgan Freeman: Click Here and another: Click Here and another (more recent): Click Here and this one where Clint is looking BELOW 6'0": Click Here and here he is looking 5'11": Click Here

Clint with 6'2" Robert Rodriguez: Click Here

Clint and George Clooney: Click Here

NEED I SAY MORE?

dmeyer says on 3/Feb/10
my comment wasnt clear sorry , i met clint 5 years ago nd he was 1.5 to 2 in on me so about 6 ft 1 maybe lost another cm since then

dmeyer says on 3/Feb/10
in person seemed 6 ft 1 range 5 years ago

191cm/252lbs says on 3/Feb/10
I think 186-187cm is much more feasible then 184cm. Peak was 192cm.

Danimal says on 3/Feb/10
Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
Exactly Danimal. Yes in 2004 Eastwood looked close to 6'2", 187cm in my book. But if you see the recent pics of him with Robbins 6'0.5" looks right to 6'4.5" Robbins and most other people. I'll assume Matt Damon is wearing lifts....

Actually, I don't agree with most of this. I don't believe Clint was close to 6'2" as late of 2004. I believe he's been under 6'1" for several years now and I also believe that Tim Robbins is not as low as 6'4.5". That's utterly ridiculous to me. He had more than .5" on 6'4" Christopher Reeves and had more than 2-2.5" on Morgan Freeman in 1994.

Heightcritique says on 3/Feb/10
The mystery of Clint's unexplained height loss in some photos is his posture; nothing more nothing less Click Here if Clint stands up straight he adds 1.5" to his height. That is the missing link and variable that solves the mystery.

On that note, can someone repost the link to the Robbins and Clint photo again. I think it got cut off from the thread already.

Anonymous says on 2/Feb/10
Rob, u thinking a bit over 6 feet now at least if not 6 feet 1/2 inches? He's lost so much height but still looks like a really tall guy?

Thanks Rob, ur right...with bad posture the 6 feet would be solid but if he can straighten his stance, then he's a a bit under 6 feet 1 inches!

Trent76 says on 2/Feb/10
He looks 6'2" in that crowd Heightcritique. No way he is 6'1"...too tall to be that short.

RisingForce says on 2/Feb/10
Good upgrade, Rob. I'd still bet on 6'1" barefoot when standing straight, but 6'0.5" is fair.

dmeyer says on 2/Feb/10
i met eastwood 5 yers ago he was onl 1.5 to taller than me so 6 ft 1 legit about 185 cm mush shoter than i expected could have doped 1 cm since then

dmeyer says on 2/Feb/10
this is mush closer thanks rob

Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
I'd say major height loss began between 1993 and 1995. In my view in Line of Fire in 1993 he still looked a strong 6'3" had what looked like 4 inches on his 5'11-6' co star. Yet in Madison County two years later he was looking nearer 6'2", and pics with Arnie would seem to indicate this.

Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
Also on that archive site check out Clint with Schwarzenegger at the 1995 Academy Awards. They look pretty even in height, maybe Clint marginally taller if they stood level. So 6'1.5" Arnie that puts Clint around 6'2" in 1995. Which in my view he looked in the 6'2"-6'2.5" range in Madison County that same year.

Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
Actually I take that back about him still looking 6'2" in 2004. Some excellent pics of him are at theclinteastwoodarchive.blogspot.com/2009/04/oscars.html. Now in the earlier pics right up to early 2000s Eastwood looks very tall, see the Heston pics, that;s an easy 6'4" in my eyes. Towers above Jack Nicholson etc. But check out the February 2004 pic of him with Robbins and weak 5'8" Sean Penn. He looks more 5'11"!! I know Robbins is closely to the camera but PLEASE Robbins has what looks like an easy 5 inches on him.

Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
I think it highly likely Damon is a lift wearer. He has looked curiously short barefoot yet often pulls off looking as tall as Pitt and Clooney. Not to mention Freeman recently said he didn;t like working with Damon because he has a big head, thinks he is God's gift. You know.

Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
Exactly Danimal. Yes in 2004 Eastwood looked close to 6'2", 187cm in my book. But if you see the recent pics of him with Robbins 6'0.5" looks right to 6'4.5" Robbins and most other people. I'll assume Matt Damon is wearing lifts....

Shaun says on 2/Feb/10
Good call Rob, I think this is now right. I think it is tricky to judge as he tends to mostly be slumped in photographs. He is one of the least height concious people I think, but if you've been 6'4" most of your life you would be used to stooping down to people....

miko says on 1/Feb/10
He's somewhere between 6"0 and 6"1 in 2010.

I'm not 100% sure he was a flat 6"4 at his peak, again I think he was somewhere between 6"3 and 6"4. Thin build made him look taller than he was, still a large man in the 70's though.

Heightcritique says on 1/Feb/10
I am 6' or 183cm barefoot and I never look so tall like Clint in a crowd. A six footer nowadays is a man or normal height and not tall. In this generation, the tall category start at 6'1" IMO. Clint in the clip I posted looks 6'2" at least and that is a few days ago this year 2010.

If everyone's opinion on how short Clint looks is based on how he looks next to Robbins then I think I already proved that others 6'2" look the same way next to him (i.e. Del Toro, and Owen).

Also, the photo I posted shows that Piennar is only 1.5" taller which makes Clint 6'1.5" (in bad posture), which is the height he looks next to Freeman when he slouches. Clint in good posture is taller than Freeman as the last clip and photo showed clearly in vivid color and motion footage as well.

Anonymous says on 1/Feb/10
Rob, u thinking a bit over 6 feet now at least if not 6 feet 1/2 inches? He's lost so much height but still looks like a really tall guy?

James says on 1/Feb/10
He really looks 6ft max here
Click Here

Danimal says on 1/Feb/10
Shaun says on 31/Jan/10
But my point is in around 2004 he was still in the 187-188cm range. Nowadays he has lost more height.

And today he is MAX 184cm imo...

dmeyer says on 1/Feb/10
this listing is wrong 6 ft 0.75 aleast

Vegas says on 1/Feb/10
Pienaar was listed at 6'3 in rugby, dont know where you guys are getting 6'4 for him from Click Here

Shaun says on 1/Feb/10
Yeah exactly Danimal. I can see 6'1" flat. I think it more likely he is between 6' and 6'1" barefoot today. Weak 6'1" in my book right now. If he was asked to stand as upright as possible, then I think barefooted he might just be 6'1" as he can still look 6'2" in shoes with good posture. I see him more 6'0.5".

Danimal says on 31/Jan/10
zephyr99 says on 31/Jan/10
I once stood behind Clint Eastwood when he was filming "In the Line of Fire" (1993) in Washington, D.C. I am 6'1. I can assure everyone that Clint was 6'4.

Very few on here doubt that he was once 6'4". As for today, he is not hitting that 6'1" mark anymore. Probably hasn't been for a few years now. Is at most 6'0 3/4", but most likely is less than even that today.

James says on 31/Jan/10
It's shocking to think in 10 years time Clint Eastwood might be no more than 5ft10 if he is still alive.

Shaun says on 31/Jan/10
But my point is in around 2004 he was still in the 187-188cm range. Nowadays he has lost more height.

Shaun says on 31/Jan/10
Height critique. That photo of Eastwood and Robbins is from 2004. He was near 6'2" then. The most recent picture of him against Robbins he is 4.5 inches shorter. See the one of Robbins, Eastwood and Forest Whitaker. Admittedly though Eastwood did still look close in height to Whitaker who is supposed to be 6'2".

zephyr99 says on 31/Jan/10
I once stood behind Clint Eastwood when he was filming "In the Line of Fire" (1993) in Washington, D.C. I am 6'1. I can assure everyone that Clint was 6'4.

jimbo says on 30/Jan/10
William Goldman, in one of his books, mentions that he was 6'1", that Gene Hackman was taller than him and, in turn, Clint was taller than them both.

josh says on 30/Jan/10
he looked at least 6'1 in gran toreno but maybe he lost an inch recently.

Heightcritique says on 29/Jan/10
Shaun: Yes, I agree that Clint is 6'1" but in bad posture. Look at the clip again and see for example how tall he looks sloching (frame 0:46) and picture him standing up straight; he will add at least 1.5" inch to his height. If you don't believe me try it yourself, slouch and measure yourself and see how much height you loose. My uncle was 6'3" in his prime and in his 90s he was a little over 6'1" with a slouch but not as bad as Clint.

In regards to Tim Robbins this is how tall he looks next to:

6'2" Clive Owen: Click Here

6'2" Benicio Del Toro: Click Here

similar height comparison next to 6'2" Clint Eastwood: Click Here

My conclusion is that: (1) Robbins is more like a 6'5"+ tall man, plus he is young and has good posture, and (2) Owen, Del Toro and Eastwood are close or similar in height at 6'2".

In regards to Pinoir, in the following picture to the untrained eye, Clint is a lot shorter then 6'4" Pienaar: but the fact is that Clint is only about 1.5" shorter (follow the perspective lines by the windows behind their heads and draw a line across it): Click Here this is called illusionary perspective; the angle of the photo distorts height and space making subjects appear taller than others. Filmakers and photographers utilize these angles to create mood and affect. I don't understand why media photographers use it for taking pictures of celebrities.

Actually, 6'4" Francois Pienaar is only 1.5" taller than Clint in bad posture: Click Here

In regards to Freeman, he is about the same height as Clint when both stand next at the same distance from the camera: Click Here (note that there is recent footage of this fact as well) Click Here
The trend I have seen is that in most photos taken by media photographers Freeman stands in front of Eastwood (which makes him look taller): Click Here

In regards to Damon, he can look as tall as 6' with enhanced footwear as he is 2" taller than 5'10" George Clooney, and as tall as 5'11" Brad Pitt who probably stands at 6' with lifts: Click Here I suspect that is the case on Damon's height in 'Invictus' and the Premiere.










similarly, the difference between Clint and Robbins is the same in comparison

Shaun says on 28/Jan/10
What towering man? Eastwood looks the way a 6'1" ish looks in most crowds. Taller than the majority. He was only marginally taller than a lot of people on that set but was quite a lot taller than a lot of blokes and women. Looked around 6'1" in that clip Heightcritique. The 6'2-6'3" argument for Eastwood today is based on nothing but one strange photo of him an inch taller than Freeman. Other evidence does not exist. If Eastwood is 6'3" today Tim Robbins is 6'8" and Pinoir 6'7".

RisingForce says on 28/Jan/10
If Eastwood stood straight more consistently then the difference probably would look more like 3 inches. Click Here Click Here

In the second picture, Damon has a camera and posture advantage yet he looks atleast 2.5" shorter to me. And regardless of how tall you think Damon is barefoot, he was appearing like a 5'10" man next to Morgan Freeman at the premiere.

Heightcritique says on 28/Jan/10
Here is a clip of Clint dated 1/26/10 during the filming of 'The Hereafter' where it shows a lanky man taller than all the crowd surrounded him; and he is not in Hobbit town, he is in San Francisco: Click Here

Notice how tall he is in relation to the covered umbrella entrance of the hotel or restaurant (stop frame at 1:01); also notice his poor posture slouching; despite it, still looks the tallest compared to all the people surrounding him. If Clint was only 6', that Nathan guy who took the video must be 5' tall since Clint looks about a head taller than him, and all the crowd around Clint between 5'10" and below...what are the chances of that?

dmeyer says on 27/Jan/10
eastwood still looks taller than pitt in lifts so he is aleast 185 this listing is wrong han look 1.5 in taller than pitt in large footwear

Danimal says on 27/Jan/10
I still believe that Eastwood was 6'0 3/4" up until 3 years ago, but has since lost more height and now that he's 80 this year, the height loss will grow even more rapid as the years pass. If someone told me he was 5'11" today I wouldn't be shocked.

Anonymous says on 27/Jan/10
but matt damon isn't 5'10". he must have been in lifts next to 6'0" eastwood.

Shaun says on 27/Jan/10
There is one scary pic (which I think was probably what swayed Rob to downgrade him to 6' was how he looked next to Damon during filming. I think though Damon is standing on higher ground and has footwear advantage and Eastwood is slumped. A good side by side photo is at chinadaily.com.cn/ of Eastwood and Damon. If Damon is 5'10" claims of "still at least 6'1"" are clearly unfounded. Eastwood looks 6' in comparison. Now I can't see their footwear but I have often thought that Damon is a lift wearer, I dunno. But if Eastwood is still 6'2", Matt Damon is 6' which, as I'm sure most will agree is false. There is deinfately not 3 or 4 inches height difference between the two, and I still have doubts Damon is really a legit 5'10".....Must admit he really looks it compared to Eastwood and Freeman,

Shaun says on 27/Jan/10
The reason why I think we are right that Eastwood is barely above 6 is not only the Robbins pics but the most incriminating evidence is how he compares with Matt Damon. He looks barely two inches taller in all honesty but I think it likely Damon is wearing lifts. If Eastwood is really 6'1" or 6'2" still Damon is around 5'11" which is rubbish. I personally think that barefooted Damon is nearer 5'9" but all I know is that there is around 2 inches height difference between Damon and Eastwood.

Shaun says on 27/Jan/10
There is a good pic of them at sgstb.msn.com. Pinoir looks 6'3.5", Freeman 6'2". Eastwood 6'0.5" and Damon 5'10.5" (I think he is wearing lifts).

Shaun says on 27/Jan/10
Agreed. I think 184 is more accurate. Perhaps you could tweak him up to 184 Rob. Thats a happy medium between 6' and 6'1".

RisingForce says on 26/Jan/10
The recent picture and video of Clint and Freeman proves that you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on 1 or 2 pictures. Exactly. MOST picture show Freeman around two inches taller than Eastwood, just do a google image search. 184cm would make perfect sense and I think I am usually a pretty good judge for height (as is Rob)...

RisingForce says on 26/Jan/10
The recent picture and video of Clint and Freeman proves that you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on 1 or 2 pictures. Especially with a man who has poor posture.

Clint is still atleast 6'1" today.

Anonymous says on 26/Jan/10
Rob do you think maybe 184cm but not quite 6 feet 1 now?

Mortred says on 26/Jan/10
On the "Hope for Haiti appeal concerts", when Matt Damon and Clint Eastwood were on saying to donate, Clint Eastwood was a solid 2 inches taller than Matt Damon. Solid evidence Clint is 6'0.

Shaun says on 26/Jan/10
Exactly Danimal. He looked easily 6'4" in Magnum Force.

Danimal says on 25/Jan/10
CaptainSpaulding says on 25/Jan/10
I don't think he was ever a legit 6'4", maybe more like 6'3" peak. Because he never looked 6'4" in Dirty Harry.

Yes he did. In the second installment, 2 of the rookie cops were 6'2" and Clint looked ALL of 6'4". He even looked 6'4" in Escape From Alcatraz from 1979. The shower scene with the 6'4" guy shows that Clint was still his peak height at that point.

dmeyer says on 25/Jan/10
aleast 6 fut 0.5

Shaun says on 25/Jan/10
Nope I think you are abour right Rob. The recent premire was a one off. Look at other recent pics of Eastwood and Freeman, such as the one at hollywoodreporter.com with Matt Damon and Eastwood looks at least 2 inches shorter. Looking at most pics I'd say Freeman is around 2inches taller than Eastwood so 6'0 or 6'0.5" is right in my eyes. I cannot however explain the recent premiere pics of him looking close to 6'3" and clearly looking taller than Freeman.

Shaun says on 25/Jan/10
The weird thing is that he looked barely 6' next to Tim Robbins and Francois Pinoir yet recently appeared clearly taller than 6'2" Morgan Freeman. I think he looks a clear inch taller than Freeman recently. Yet he looked 5'11" next to Matt Damon in some pics, although I think Damon had lifts to make him bigger and he also looked 5'11" next to Pitt in some pics and then looked 6'2" in the other photos. So Eastwood has appeared between 5'11" and 6'3" in recent times. Looking at the majority of pics though I really don't think he is anywhere near 6'3" today. But I think it possible he is a little taller than most of think if he stood straight with good posture rather than slumping all the time.

Anonymous says on 25/Jan/10
The video of clint and freeman shows that clint is still 6ft2 at least or freeman is only 6ft.So after watching that clip of both men,CelebHights.com have to put clint back to 6ft2 and a half or bring freeman down to 6ft.

CaptainSpaulding says on 25/Jan/10
I don't think he was ever a legit 6'4", maybe more like 6'3" peak. Because he never looked 6'4" in Dirty Harry. And as for current height, its hard to tell. He can look as short as 5'11" or as tall as 6'2". In a pic where he only has 1 inch on SLOUCHING MATT DAMON he looks 5'11". In other pics he looks either shorter OR taller then Morgan Freeman whos prob 6'1" these days after losing an inch due to old age.

Shaun says on 24/Jan/10
Rob, what do you think about how he is looking of late compared to Freeman? I still think he only looked 6'0.5" next to Tim Robbins and that South African rugby player Pinoir. I wonder if though he has had his dowagers hump seen to or something and is actively doing something in regards to his poor posture. Because i'd expected him to be looking 2 inches shorter than 6'2" Freeman, not looking 6'3"!!

Heightcritique says on 23/Jan/10
Clint looks in better posture in the that photo taken in 2010 which I suspect is due to either 1) a new regimen of back stretching exercises or/also 2) an othopedic back brace Click Here
to help him regain his normal posture. Freeman is nothing less than 6'2" so now that the there is footage evidence (thanks to Vegas) that Clint is actually in the 6'2"+ in good posture, it debunks the bogus claim that he lost 3" which I reiterate is a gross error which does not consider the age and posture variables. Clint is still an impossing presence not only in height but also in character, in and out of the big screen.

Vegas says on 21/Jan/10
Anonymous says on 19/Jan/10
I think the photo with freeman is fake something about it looks not right

this video from the same night must be fake too so Click Here

Aleks says on 21/Jan/10
Clint was 6'3½' in his youth, clamed 6'4" because very few people don't round up their height.

Konan says on 21/Jan/10
Lost 10 cm? Lol

Anonymous says on 20/Jan/10
most all celebrities lie about their height, except a few....

Anonymous says on 19/Jan/10
I think the photo with freeman is fake something about it looks not right.Every photo of clint with freeman shows freeman to be the taller man except this one.I think clint was 6ft3 as a young man and lee marvin 6ft1 not 6ft2.

Heightcritique says on 17/Jan/10
Shaun: Old men slouch and have bad postures in general. That is fact and a variable that has to be taking into account when gauging height for a 80 something guy. Otherwise height estimate is bias and deficient and its result fundamentally a gross error. Clint does not suffer from any back deterioration decease or is not a mutant to loose 3" of height. It is bad posture and nothing more. If you see his photos next to Pitt, and see Pitt next to other 6'2" one can only deduct that Clint is still at least 6'2".

As far as someone laughing at me for my comments, well let's just say that a gauge of 6' to a man who was 6'4" and now in his 80s, is not only laughable but impossible. I respect everyone's opinion but I must reiterate on the bad posture and age variable that has skewed Clint's height to a perceived meager height.

Shaun says on 17/Jan/10
Yes thats the picture Heightcritique. When Clint stands up straight he seems to look 6'2". He even looks 6'3" next to Freeman. How weird. Now I'm pretty sure that Eastwood doesn't wear lifts. How to we account for the 5'11-6'3" sighting we've seen?? Just posture? The thing is we've all seen the pics of Eastwood next to 6'4" Francois Pinoir and 6'52 Tim Robbins and if you tried to claim Eastwod was still 6'2"-6'3" in comparison you'd be laughed at as he looked little more than 6' flat next to both men.... But just looking at Clint's body in that Freeman photo, with good posture, even if Freeman wasn't there he still looks like a tall man and close to 6'2"...

Heightcritique says on 16/Jan/10
Clint in 2010 next to 6'2" Freeman which shows irrefutably that when both men stand next to each other with good posture Clint is still 6'3" as he claimed in GQ Magazine in 2009: Click Here

As a side note, if you have a man relative in his 80s, you know that when they stand up straight they can add up to 2" to their height. Even a man in his 30s when he stretches in exercises can add up to an 1" to his height. Clint is 6'1" in bad posture and in good posture between 6'2" - 6'3" (fully stretched and in military posture).

Shaun says on 16/Jan/10
I'd buy 6'3.5" in the 80s for sure. It makes sense also when he was an inch shorter than Neeson who was 6'4.5" peak. The 6'4" range peak though is pretty certain as the evidence that he was this height is overwhelming whether in comparison to other 6'2"-6'4" actors or what he claimed/was measured

Shaun says on 16/Jan/10
I'm confused as hell. There is a new picture of Eastwood and Freeman standing side by side at cinemaretro.com. It is VERY odd because Eastwood looks two inches taller. If Eastwood is 6'0 then Freeman is 5'10". Which as we know is ridiculous. This is extremely CONFUSING as if Freeman is still 6'2" Eastwood is STILL close to 6'4". Now we know compared to Robbins, Damon, Pitt etc that 6'4" for Eastwood is absurd today but if you saw the picture and found we were claiming Morgan Freeman is two inches taller than Eastwood you'd find it weird as it looks the other way round. Has Freeman now lost a lot of height. Because if Eastwood is 6' today Freeman is clearly not over it in comparison. Google image cinemaretro.com eastwood and freeman Rob and everybody else here. It will baffle you.

Heightcritique says on 15/Jan/10
Clint was definitely 6'4" peak there is no question about it. Someone posted his bodyguard card a while ago and it read 6'4" (a barefoot measure). Next to Lee Marvin who was 6'2"+ in his prime, Clint looks two inches taller at 6'4": Click Here Click Here

As far as how tall he is now in his 80s, next to Freeman during the 'Invictus' premiere he looks about the same height (if he took a step forward and stop slouching): Click Here again, nothing below 6'2" for Clint is possible. Those who know basic concepts about photography know that his height is the same at Freeman looking at the former photo.

Danimal says on 15/Jan/10
Whatever Schwarzenegger is today, Clint is less (based on their pic). In the 80's, Clint had over 2" on Arnold.

Peak - 6'4"
Today - 6'0 3/4" MAX

adam2 says on 15/Jan/10
Two-inch height loss my ass!

Hugh 190-192cm says on 14/Jan/10
With bad posture Eastwood can look in the 6"0 range. Standing straight he looks taller though. I think 6"3-6"4 peak and 6"1-6"2 now. thats a 2 inch loss due to injuries on set over the years. In the Dead Pool (1988) he still looked close to 6"4 with 2 inches over 6"1.5-6"2 Jim Carrey and only 1 inch shorter than Liam Neeson who could have been
6"4-6"5 peak.

In the 90's he did begin to look shorter, looking between 6"2 and 6"3 most of the time. In Million Dollar Baby he was looking closer to 6"1.

Dural says on 13/Jan/10
Rob's listing is on the dot, might be still close to 6'1" with better posture.

Danimal says on 13/Jan/10
Shaun says on 13/Jan/10
Agree with Peteyork completely. I'd say he lost the inch somehwere between 1978 and 1985 as I'm convinced Eastwood was 6'3" by the 1980s. He looks exactly how a 6'3" looks in Sudden Impact, Pale Rider etc. Looked to still be 6'3" in Unforgiven but by 1995 in Bridges of Madison he was looking more 6'2.5" Lets not forget that he had at least three inches on his 5'11-6' co star in Line of Fire in 1993 so he had to have been still in the 6'3" range around 1992-1993. But the loss from 6'3" to 6'1" is difficult to follow, in that 1999 film Eastwood looked around 6'2". By 2004's Million Dollar he was looking 6'1".

Shaun, watch Escape From Alcatraz from 1979 (GREAT movie). The actor who tried hitting on and later tried to stab Clint in the movie is listed at 6'4". There is a shower scene where Clint is right next to him and when he stands straight is exactly the same height as him. I agree that he started looking shorter by Sudden Impact (1983), probably by about .5" only.

Terry says on 13/Jan/10
peteyork called it right. Saw Jon Humphrys the other day on "Celbrity Mastermind" on the BBC handing over the trophy to Nigel Planar, who is 6'3". He towered over Humphrys but not as much as Clint did in that interview with Humphrys. Height loss is easily explained by his very poor posture for a start

Shaun says on 13/Jan/10
Agree with Peteyork completely. I'd say he lost the inch somehwere between 1978 and 1985 as I'm convinced Eastwood was 6'3" by the 1980s. He looks exactly how a 6'3" looks in Sudden Impact, Pale Rider etc. Looked to still be 6'3" in Unforgiven but by 1995 in Bridges of Madison he was looking more 6'2.5" Lets not forget that he had at least three inches on his 5'11-6' co star in Line of Fire in 1993 so he had to have been still in the 6'3" range around 1992-1993. But the loss from 6'3" to 6'1" is difficult to follow, in that 1999 film Eastwood looked around 6'2". By 2004's Million Dollar he was looking 6'1".

peteyork says on 12/Jan/10
Old man's neck accounts for an easy inch in height loss, bowed legs another, spine problems like Eastwood can be as much as four inches all by themselves. Look at the Whitaker Eastwood photos below. Clint has lost two inches at least since 1990. When he made Unforgiven he was at least Morgan Freeman's height, who was probably closer if not 6'3 at the time or at least a tall 6'2. Clint already had back problems he was an inch short than Liam Neelson in the dead Pool, who was still 1/2 inch taller then Conon o'Brien recently, so 6'4 1/2 when he is not slouching. A doctor spoke of signs of a damage spine back in the mid seventies, in movies with the orangatan etc. He looked only a two inches at most taller than 6'1 jeff bridges at the time when walking. When he stood up straight he was still three inches taller. Clint Eastwood was slightly taller than Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heros, who had two inches on Sean Connery about the same time. He was at least two and half perhaps three inches taller than lee Marvin in paint your wagon. He lost an inch or nearly an inch between 1970 and 1985. He lost about the same again by Unforgiven, then the wheels really came off, by the time of Million dollar baby, Morgan had him by an inch and a half. Morgan who is 76, so hardly at peak height any more himself, has him by two inches now. There is an interview with andrew marr and clint in 1968, marr comes up to the bottom of clint nose, he might even be shorter than that, marr is 5'8. Clint looked at least 6'4 in the interview.

Shaun says on 12/Jan/10
Eastwood was never a weightlifter? You clearly know nothing about him. Eastwood has always been very fitness conscious and has worked out heavily many hours a week with weights and other training methods throughout his life. He has trained with weights and eaten healthily ever since his late teens. No, not all men lose much height but Eastwood has had back trouble. As for heavy bodybuilders not losing height. You clearly know nothing here too. Lifting heavy weights for decades, taking steroids etc takes its toll on the body. Especially on the joints and cartlidges and such people who've had operations like Hulk Hogan and David Prowse have clearly lost several inches in height from their prime. There is no bull in the fact that Hogan, Arnie, Lundgren, Ferrigno, Prowse etc have lost a lot of height. David Prowse has allegedly lost even more and is now nearer 6'2" from a peak 6'6.5". If you total up what these heavy bodybuilders have lost in height, let me see, Hogan has lost 2 inches, Arnie 1.5 inches, Lundgren 1 inch, Ferrigno 2.5 inch, Browse 4.5 inches that's pretty much a foot height loss between these body builders. And if you think I am talking out my behind, look at these guys in their prime and now see how much smaller they are today.

Bomba says on 12/Jan/10
Ok so you get shorter as you get older but not by 4", that's just silly. when I saw him my eyes were in line with his mouth & I'm 6'1", so say 6'3" in shoes about 10 years back.

PatB says on 11/Jan/10
The sites I looked at state that the average man loses just a little more than one inch from ages 30 to 70. I'm going to be 67 this week so I checked my height yesterday. I used to be 6'4". Much to my alarm I am down a quarter of an inch . Quick where does Robert Downey get those wonderful shoes?

Eastwood and I were about the same height for most of our lives but he seems to have shrunken. Of course he is still a decade older yet than old fogey me. I think Clint really has gotten shorter but I have my doubts about all the wild speculation about shrinkage that appears on this site.

Women shrink more than men - about two inches by 70. That's understandable - osteoporosis. But there is no comparable male problem I know of that effects height. I think most male movie stars never shrink because so few of them are in the public eye when they get to those ages where shrinkage is a real phenomenon. Most male celebrities are finished around 55 (women about 35). They may have more wrinkles but are likely to be the same height as they ever were.

A common "explanation" for loss of height that read about here is that weightlifters have compressed themselves. LOL. Well Eastwood was never a weightlifter I believe and if lifting really made you shorter I doubt if Stalone would have ever pumped up.

Shaun says on 11/Jan/10
REX, that's cause Tim Robbins or Steven Seagal at peak were/are closer to 6'5" than 6'4". Watch Magnum Force and Clint was definately in the lanky range, I am 110% certain Eastwood was between 6'3" and 6'4" if not 6'4" at peak barefoot. Unlike Robbins who is a legit barefoot 6'5" out of bed and Seagal was a likely 6'4.5". Eastwood was never a strong 6'4" like they were maybe morning height. But Eastwood was definately between 190-193 peak there is no doubt. C'mon a flat 6'2" for Eastwood peak is clearly too low. I've read his biography and it frequently mentions how infatuated film directors/producers were in meeting Eastwood and how tall he looked and phyuically very impressive. One producer rather exaggeratingly said in one of his late 60s films "Eastwood arrived at the studios and came in looking seven feet tall". 6'2" men never give that sort of impression. A towering 6'4" however would as Clint at peak always looked exceptionally tall for his generation even though there were far more 6'1-6'5" actors in Hollywood than today. To me he looked a legit 6'4" in the 60s and 70s. 6'3" in mid to late the 80s.

Shaun says on 11/Jan/10
6'3"? LOL that means that Brad Pitt has pulled off 6'4.5" and Tim Robbins is 6'8". LOL. Somebody show Olivia the picture of Eastwood next to 6'4.5-6'5" Tim Robbins.

Olivia says on 9/Jan/10
Clint is 6'3" I have met him and although he is quite thin and seems at times shorter because of his age, he is still 6'3"

REX says on 8/Jan/10
Today he looks shorter than Morgan Freeman by a couple of inches:
Click Here

But certainly he was taller than him when younger,at least 6'3.
I don't see 6'4 at all. (he was tall but don't give me the tall impression that I have when I see legitimate 6'4 guys,like Tim Robbins or Steven Seagal)
So again 4 inches are too many for me.
Freeman strangely lost nothing,he was and still is 6'2 even at 72.

Danimal says on 8/Jan/10
REX says on 7/Jan/10
4 inches of height loss is impossible,even for an 80y old man.
Maybe he was 6'3 and now is still pushing 6'0,but man 4 inches (10cm) are too many.

No, it's not impossible.