puffball says on 24/Sep/11
My 6'2 1/2" brother met Gene Siskel at a Chicago golf tournament over 20 years ago. Gene Siskel claimed his height to be 6'3," but in reality, my brother said that Gene was exactly 6'2," a half-inch shorter than my brother. My brother has an eye for height, and yes, Gene in pictures looked six inches taller than Roger Ebert, so Gene at 6'3" wasn't accurate, except for when he had his shoes on.
Six years later, my sister, also with an eye for height, went to see Roger Ebert at a book discussion and said that he was exactly 5'8," not any taller or shorter than he was on TV back in his heyday with Gene Siskel. Due to illness, Ebert may have shrunk an inch or two, but back in the day, we saw Gene as 6'2" and Roger as 5'8."

5\'8.56786 says on 25/Jul/11
Ebert might be the record holder for watchint the most movies, but he isn't as brilliant as people make him out to be, some of his critiques are notably flawed.

jake says on 13/Jul/11
jtm, Rudd isn't shorter than 5ft8.5in.

jtm says on 12/Jul/11
he was clearly shorter than 5'7.5 paul rudd in 2003.

Shaun says on 12/Jul/11
This guy is an absolute legend in the cinema world. I swear he holds the world record for watching the most movies. Yeah I saw a pic of him next to Peter o Toole and thought he looked short although Toole is bordering very tall range himself. I'd have guessed he was 5'6" or 5'7".