Add a Comment5611 comments
Average Guess (447 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
James B said on 29/Jul/14
Sorry here's the scene
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qK8-liiew
Sorry here's the scene
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qK8-liiew
James B said on 29/Jul/14
He looks nearly as tall as Hudson in that scene
Arch go to to around 1:38 in this scene from coogans bluff
His legs look very long but more to the point do you agree arch he looks around 6ft5 in that scene? Of course his clothing, heels, and hairstlye are obviously making him look taller. Take all that away and he wouldn't look anywhere near that big. Can't decide if he looks 6'6 or 6'5 in that particular scene? Clearly he looks taller than 6'3 there that's for sure.
Lol this film was made the same year as hang em high where he could look 6ft at times.
He looks nearly as tall as Hudson in that scene
Arch go to to around 1:38 in this scene from coogans bluff
His legs look very long but more to the point do you agree arch he looks around 6ft5 in that scene? Of course his clothing, heels, and hairstlye are obviously making him look taller. Take all that away and he wouldn't look anywhere near that big. Can't decide if he looks 6'6 or 6'5 in that particular scene? Clearly he looks taller than 6'3 there that's for sure.
Lol this film was made the same year as hang em high where he could look 6ft at times.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Jul/14
Yeah that's an odd one, actually he looks more 6 ft walking there and his legs don't look lanky!!
Yeah that's an odd one, actually he looks more 6 ft walking there and his legs don't look lanky!!
Parker said on 29/Jul/14
Go to 1.15 to those who haven't seen a young Clint next to Rock Hudson.
Click Here
Go to 1.15 to those who haven't seen a young Clint next to Rock Hudson.
Click Here
James B said on 27/Jul/14
Oh yeah arch no denying he looked taller than 6'3 in that scene in the enforcer. He didn't look dissimilar to Christopher's lees heights in fact that particular part of the film.
Arch would you say clint looks around 6'2 in this scene from hang em high?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lvwZgq4ydc
Of course in all his films from the 70s never looked anything under 6'3.
Oh yeah arch no denying he looked taller than 6'3 in that scene in the enforcer. He didn't look dissimilar to Christopher's lees heights in fact that particular part of the film.
Arch would you say clint looks around 6'2 in this scene from hang em high?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lvwZgq4ydc
Of course in all his films from the 70s never looked anything under 6'3.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Jul/14
James, like that scene in The Enforcer I think it was when he walked across the street to the store to the guys who ask him to "spread eagle", you can imagine him measuring 195cm in shoes there couldn't you?
James, like that scene in The Enforcer I think it was when he walked across the street to the store to the guys who ask him to "spread eagle", you can imagine him measuring 195cm in shoes there couldn't you?
Arch Stanton said on 26/Jul/14
The only thing, and I agree with you on this James with what you said in the past, for a proper 6 ft 4 guy, with his big quiff hairstyle, cowboy boots/hat, you'd expect him to look 6'6-6'7" in his westerns yet he never really looked over 6 ft 5 in boots did he? At times he could look 6'6 in boots like the store scene in Outlaw Josey or in GBU where he gets off the horse, walking towards the camp on the side of the bridge but generally he looked about 6 ft 5 in boots. Now cowboy boots give 1.5 -2 inches. You could imagine him measuring 6'3.5" without I suppose. He was supposed to have been measured in the 60s for a waxwork in Dollars garb including boots though which I've read he measured 6'5.5. You can see in his 70s films that he was genuinely at worst a solid 6'3". Somewhere between 191 and 193 is arguable, but there's no way he was under 6'3", too lanky. And most comparisons actually point to a full 6'4" rather than 6'3" range anyway..
The only thing, and I agree with you on this James with what you said in the past, for a proper 6 ft 4 guy, with his big quiff hairstyle, cowboy boots/hat, you'd expect him to look 6'6-6'7" in his westerns yet he never really looked over 6 ft 5 in boots did he? At times he could look 6'6 in boots like the store scene in Outlaw Josey or in GBU where he gets off the horse, walking towards the camp on the side of the bridge but generally he looked about 6 ft 5 in boots. Now cowboy boots give 1.5 -2 inches. You could imagine him measuring 6'3.5" without I suppose. He was supposed to have been measured in the 60s for a waxwork in Dollars garb including boots though which I've read he measured 6'5.5. You can see in his 70s films that he was genuinely at worst a solid 6'3". Somewhere between 191 and 193 is arguable, but there's no way he was under 6'3", too lanky. And most comparisons actually point to a full 6'4" rather than 6'3" range anyway..
James B said on 23/Jul/14
Arch if I did not know clints height and if someone said he was 6'5 in play misty for me I would not question it.
Arch if I did not know clints height and if someone said he was 6'5 in play misty for me I would not question it.
James B said on 23/Jul/14
I think he was being honest when he was measured at 6 ft 4 in his last year in school or something and there was only one kid in the school taller at 6 ft 5. I think most of us (except James) agree he looked in that 6'3.5-6'4" range in the 60s and 70s. Also if you consider his lanky build to weigh 205-216 pounds as he did he'd have to be very tall with decent muscle mass to weigh that on a lanky frame. Hasselhoff at 6'4" is a naturally well built guy and a meso unlike Clint and weighs only 191 pounds.
Arch you misunderstand me in the 70s he never looked anything less than 6'3 range but I was just saying in his later movies from the 80s he started to look slightly under 6'3 'AT TIMES.' Granted there was the occasional moment in hang em high where he looked under 6'3.
I think he was being honest when he was measured at 6 ft 4 in his last year in school or something and there was only one kid in the school taller at 6 ft 5. I think most of us (except James) agree he looked in that 6'3.5-6'4" range in the 60s and 70s. Also if you consider his lanky build to weigh 205-216 pounds as he did he'd have to be very tall with decent muscle mass to weigh that on a lanky frame. Hasselhoff at 6'4" is a naturally well built guy and a meso unlike Clint and weighs only 191 pounds.
Arch you misunderstand me in the 70s he never looked anything less than 6'3 range but I was just saying in his later movies from the 80s he started to look slightly under 6'3 'AT TIMES.' Granted there was the occasional moment in hang em high where he looked under 6'3.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/14
I think he was being honest when he was measured at 6 ft 4 in his last year in school or something and there was only one kid in the school taller at 6 ft 5. I think most of us (except James) agree he looked in that 6'3.5-6'4" range in the 60s and 70s. Also if you consider his lanky build to weigh 205-216 pounds as he did he'd have to be very tall with decent muscle mass to weigh that on a lanky frame. Hasselhoff at 6'4" is a naturally well built guy and a meso unlike Clint and weighs only 191 pounds.
I think he was being honest when he was measured at 6 ft 4 in his last year in school or something and there was only one kid in the school taller at 6 ft 5. I think most of us (except James) agree he looked in that 6'3.5-6'4" range in the 60s and 70s. Also if you consider his lanky build to weigh 205-216 pounds as he did he'd have to be very tall with decent muscle mass to weigh that on a lanky frame. Hasselhoff at 6'4" is a naturally well built guy and a meso unlike Clint and weighs only 191 pounds.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/14
James B says on 16/Jul/14
Where do the 6'2 estimates for clint come from?
You!!
James B says on 16/Jul/14
Where do the 6'2 estimates for clint come from?
You!!
jervis said on 17/Jul/14
Strong 6ft3 or weak 6ft4 peak.
Strong 6ft3 or weak 6ft4 peak.
James B said on 16/Jul/14
Where do the 6'2 estimates for clint come from?
Where do the 6'2 estimates for clint come from?
Sam said on 15/Jul/14
Agree with Rob, a weak 6'4", woke up a bit over 6'4", could have been 6'3.5" range by afternoon...there's no way he peaked as low as 6'3" or under at full height IMO just to consistent too tall in comparison to other tall men like Sutherland, George Kennedy and that all star line-up including Hudson.
Agree with Rob, a weak 6'4", woke up a bit over 6'4", could have been 6'3.5" range by afternoon...there's no way he peaked as low as 6'3" or under at full height IMO just to consistent too tall in comparison to other tall men like Sutherland, George Kennedy and that all star line-up including Hudson.
James B said on 11/Jul/14
Rob sometime in the future will you consider downgrading clints peak to 6'3 1/2 like you did with Donald sutherland. Or are you convinced he was the full 6'4?
Editor Rob
Rob sometime in the future will you consider downgrading clints peak to 6'3 1/2 like you did with Donald sutherland. Or are you convinced he was the full 6'4?
Editor Rob both 6ft 3.5 and 4 are arguable peaks for him
Gonzalo said on 10/Jul/14
Sam says on 8/Jul/14
Cool to see Clint with James Stewart, but I don't see it as proof that Clint was 6'3".
So, Sam, what`s your guess about Eastwood?
He was as tall as George Kennedy, not much shorter than Rock Hudson. IMO in his prime he looked in the 1`93 area
Sam says on 8/Jul/14
Cool to see Clint with James Stewart, but I don't see it as proof that Clint was 6'3".
So, Sam, what`s your guess about Eastwood?
He was as tall as George Kennedy, not much shorter than Rock Hudson. IMO in his prime he looked in the 1`93 area
James B said on 8/Jul/14
I find hard to believe as well that a peak clint would have had 2 inches on jackman
I find hard to believe as well that a peak clint would have had 2 inches on jackman
Sam said on 8/Jul/14
Cool to see Clint with James Stewart, but I don't see it as proof that Clint was 6'3".
Cool to see Clint with James Stewart, but I don't see it as proof that Clint was 6'3".
crazy cajun said on 6/Jul/14
Clint was never 6'4 . 6'3 or 6'3 1/2 at most. His lanky build and thick bushy hair made him look about 1 inch taller than he really was . In million dollar baby he looked about 2 inches shorter than 6'2 Morgan Freeman . So nothing over 6 feet now .
Clint was never 6'4 . 6'3 or 6'3 1/2 at most. His lanky build and thick bushy hair made him look about 1 inch taller than he really was . In million dollar baby he looked about 2 inches shorter than 6'2 Morgan Freeman . So nothing over 6 feet now .
jervis said on 6/Jul/14
There is a photo of Clint with James Stewart Clint is about 60 in it and Stewart 82.Clint has about 2 inches on Stewart.At 60 Clint would have been around 6ft3,the same as Stewarts peek.lts just an example of how much hight you can lose in old age.Stewart looks to have lost about 2 inches from his peak.Also Clints posture can change his hight a lot in photos in bad posture he can look 2 inches shorter thann when he stands stright,I think that is a very important thing to remember when judging Clints hight.
There is a photo of Clint with James Stewart Clint is about 60 in it and Stewart 82.Clint has about 2 inches on Stewart.At 60 Clint would have been around 6ft3,the same as Stewarts peek.lts just an example of how much hight you can lose in old age.Stewart looks to have lost about 2 inches from his peak.Also Clints posture can change his hight a lot in photos in bad posture he can look 2 inches shorter thann when he stands stright,I think that is a very important thing to remember when judging Clints hight.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Jul/14
jervis says on 3/Jul/14
Its hard to belive that the young Clint would have 2inches on Jackman.
Why? Clint's much more lankier in the leg.~~~~
jervis says on 3/Jul/14
Its hard to belive that the young Clint would have 2inches on Jackman.
Why? Clint's much more lankier in the leg.~~~~
nrbobh5344 said on 3/Jul/14
In 'Million Dollar Baby' Clint walks with 6'2" Brian O'Byrne (the priest) and he is about 1 inch shorter than Brian. Seems like Clint was about 6'1"-ish in 2004.
In 'Million Dollar Baby' Clint walks with 6'2" Brian O'Byrne (the priest) and he is about 1 inch shorter than Brian. Seems like Clint was about 6'1"-ish in 2004.
jervis said on 3/Jul/14
Its hard to belive that the young Clint would have 2inches on Jackman.Clint was a weak 6ft4 in his younger days to me know less than 6ft3,but in the photo with Jackman looks bearly 6ft.For a man who held his own against the likes of George Kenedey and Rock Hudson and now is bearly taller than Brad Pitt its a lot of hight loss.l think it was all that bad posture in his younger days
caused his hight loss.Liam Neeson is heading that way to because his posture is very bad too.
Its hard to belive that the young Clint would have 2inches on Jackman.Clint was a weak 6ft4 in his younger days to me know less than 6ft3,but in the photo with Jackman looks bearly 6ft.For a man who held his own against the likes of George Kenedey and Rock Hudson and now is bearly taller than Brad Pitt its a lot of hight loss.l think it was all that bad posture in his younger days
caused his hight loss.Liam Neeson is heading that way to because his posture is very bad too.
James B said on 2/Jul/14
Clint would defo have been no taller than 192cm at night in his prime
Clint would defo have been no taller than 192cm at night in his prime
James B said on 18/Jun/14
He looks 6ft flat with 6'1.5 hugh jackman
He looks 6ft flat with 6'1.5 hugh jackman
mike said on 16/Jun/14
Rob, could Clint be heading towards 6ft flat now?
Editor Rob
Rob, could Clint be heading towards 6ft flat now?
Editor Rob he might be around it
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jun/14
And what actor does she think was/is James? Warren Beatty? Robert Redford? James Garner?
And what actor does she think was/is James? Warren Beatty? Robert Redford? James Garner?
avi said on 14/Jun/14
Again never 6'4...
Again never 6'4...
James B said on 12/Jun/14
Arch my mum said earlier tonight that david Beckham looking like clint Eastwood was not a good thing since in her own words "clint Eastwood was not the best looking guy in the world"
Arch my mum said earlier tonight that david Beckham looking like clint Eastwood was not a good thing since in her own words "clint Eastwood was not the best looking guy in the world"
James B said on 12/Jun/14
Well the girls who wrote the comments still thought he looked good.
Well the girls who wrote the comments still thought he looked good.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Jun/14
He's in flat slippers and a dressing gown in White Hunter and in all honesty he really looked near 6'4" still proportionally IMO. Yes, he looked an inch shorter than Nesosn in Dead Pool but he looked a strong 6'3" still in that film.
He's in flat slippers and a dressing gown in White Hunter and in all honesty he really looked near 6'4" still proportionally IMO. Yes, he looked an inch shorter than Nesosn in Dead Pool but he looked a strong 6'3" still in that film.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Jun/14
Still looked a strong 6'3" in White Hunter Black Heart in 1990 next to Jeff Fahey who Rob has at 6 ft. Eastwood had almost 4 inches on him.
Still looked a strong 6'3" in White Hunter Black Heart in 1990 next to Jeff Fahey who Rob has at 6 ft. Eastwood had almost 4 inches on him.
Sam said on 28/May/14
I think Arch's second Jackman shot was from Les Mis, in the part where he had an ugly scraggly beard and lost a bunch of weight to look gaunt. I recently saw Prisoners, there he had a shorter beard but looked fairly bulky and imposing. Jackman's lucky that he can change his weight so rapidly at his age. From shots from the new X Men he definitely was back in Wolverine-fighting shape.
I think Arch's second Jackman shot was from Les Mis, in the part where he had an ugly scraggly beard and lost a bunch of weight to look gaunt. I recently saw Prisoners, there he had a shorter beard but looked fairly bulky and imposing. Jackman's lucky that he can change his weight so rapidly at his age. From shots from the new X Men he definitely was back in Wolverine-fighting shape.
Arch Stanton said on 28/May/14
Of course I've seen it Tommo!! Even Jackman says it's like a different guy on screen to himself! I would strongly doubt he drinks much James, he's the opposite from the alcoholic type I would think. He said himself in one of the links that he is "Labradorish" and not tortured at all like his character.
Of course I've seen it Tommo!! Even Jackman says it's like a different guy on screen to himself! I would strongly doubt he drinks much James, he's the opposite from the alcoholic type I would think. He said himself in one of the links that he is "Labradorish" and not tortured at all like his character.
Tommo said on 25/May/14
@Arch Stanton have you seen the X-men film days of future past? Jackman looks like something out of a Greek myth in that! Though I think it was shot about a year ago .
@Arch Stanton have you seen the X-men film days of future past? Jackman looks like something out of a Greek myth in that! Though I think it was shot about a year ago .
James B said on 25/May/14
Arch my uncle who has had very bad health problems cause he is an alcoholic looks identical to Hugh jackman in particular around the eyes and the facial wrinkles also. Different colouring to jackman though (he has fair hair and blue eyes). That and my uncle is only 5'8 (was 5'9 when he was healthy) and weighs 8 and a half stone aged 47 'YIKES.'
Doubt hugh is an alcoholic though......
Arch my uncle who has had very bad health problems cause he is an alcoholic looks identical to Hugh jackman in particular around the eyes and the facial wrinkles also. Different colouring to jackman though (he has fair hair and blue eyes). That and my uncle is only 5'8 (was 5'9 when he was healthy) and weighs 8 and a half stone aged 47 'YIKES.'
Doubt hugh is an alcoholic though......
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/14
In fairness though most people look better during the summer than during the winter and at different times of the year and if he's been ill too. But there's definitely two of them hehe!
In fairness though most people look better during the summer than during the winter and at different times of the year and if he's been ill too. But there's definitely two of them hehe!
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/14
Oh yeah I'm sure most women would kill for a guy like Jackman. I think most guys would be lying if they said they wouldn't want to look like him and have his physique too. You can see what I mean though.
Compare
Click Here (looks pretty much male perfection, tanned and well there) vs now Click Here He looks really drawn and washed out under the eyes and the beard that length is really aging on him. He looks better tanned with the beard neatly trimmed to a stubble.
Editor Rob
Oh yeah I'm sure most women would kill for a guy like Jackman. I think most guys would be lying if they said they wouldn't want to look like him and have his physique too. You can see what I mean though.
Compare
Click Here (looks pretty much male perfection, tanned and well there) vs now Click Here He looks really drawn and washed out under the eyes and the beard that length is really aging on him. He looks better tanned with the beard neatly trimmed to a stubble.
Editor Rob beards like that generally attract hobo type comments...although to be fair, the kind of clobber I go around in at times I probably look like a hobo...but I keep my beard shortish most of the time. Recently 2-3mm and a weekly trim
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/14
Click Here
Jackman apologises for it here! I think he's aware that a longer beard ages him!
Click Here
Jackman apologises for it here! I think he's aware that a longer beard ages him!
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/14
Not sure what they have to do with anything... Hugh Jackman's the sort of guy who can look very handsome at times but other times and especially recently he's sort of starting to look like an aging geography teacher and looks pale and unwell. I've read he had some cancerous lump or something removed from his nose, might explain it, although I think it was a minor skin thing. A full beard on him really looks aging.
Editor Rob
Not sure what they have to do with anything... Hugh Jackman's the sort of guy who can look very handsome at times but other times and especially recently he's sort of starting to look like an aging geography teacher and looks pale and unwell. I've read he had some cancerous lump or something removed from his nose, might explain it, although I think it was a minor skin thing. A full beard on him really looks aging.
Editor Rob to be fair if you looked like Jackman and had his height you are going to have no problem at all with women even with a beard.
But I can see nowadays at times maybe he doesn't look as well as a few years ago...maybe the skin cancer mole/stresses with that has took a little toll?
But I can see nowadays at times maybe he doesn't look as well as a few years ago...maybe the skin cancer mole/stresses with that has took a little toll?
James B said on 19/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/14
James have you seen Firefox? He looked 6'3" max in that film.
I thought he looked tall in that movie.
Arch also having excess body fat has not held leonardo dicaprio back from being a heartthrob has it? More women would go for him then guys in better shape such as Hugh jackman or david beckham.
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/14
James have you seen Firefox? He looked 6'3" max in that film.
I thought he looked tall in that movie.
Arch also having excess body fat has not held leonardo dicaprio back from being a heartthrob has it? More women would go for him then guys in better shape such as Hugh jackman or david beckham.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/14
James have you seen Firefox? He looked 6'3" max in that film.
James have you seen Firefox? He looked 6'3" max in that film.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/14
It's mainly diet yeah, but if you want to blast off any excess fat quicker then intense cardio sessions is the way to go and eating clean. My craving is bread, hot cross buns, crisps and pasta. Other than that I eat pretty well! I'm already in good shape, but to look ripped you really have to lose as much body fat as possible! The problem is when you get hungry later in the evening. If I eat a bowl of popcorn and celery at 7 o clock I find it cures it later at night then!
It's mainly diet yeah, but if you want to blast off any excess fat quicker then intense cardio sessions is the way to go and eating clean. My craving is bread, hot cross buns, crisps and pasta. Other than that I eat pretty well! I'm already in good shape, but to look ripped you really have to lose as much body fat as possible! The problem is when you get hungry later in the evening. If I eat a bowl of popcorn and celery at 7 o clock I find it cures it later at night then!
James B said on 14/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 14/May/14
6'1 and a half and 196 pounds currently, I wasn't at that age! Under 190 seems light to me, I'm seeing if I can get down to 180s range as a test over the summer but I'm not sure it's possible without some serious dieting and exercise!
Losing weight is all about having the right diet.
Arch Stanton says on 14/May/14
6'1 and a half and 196 pounds currently, I wasn't at that age! Under 190 seems light to me, I'm seeing if I can get down to 180s range as a test over the summer but I'm not sure it's possible without some serious dieting and exercise!
Losing weight is all about having the right diet.
Arch Stanton said on 14/May/14
6'1 and a half and 196 pounds currently, I wasn't at that age! Under 190 seems light to me, I'm seeing if I can get down to 180s range as a test over the summer but I'm not sure it's possible without some serious dieting and exercise!
6'1 and a half and 196 pounds currently, I wasn't at that age! Under 190 seems light to me, I'm seeing if I can get down to 180s range as a test over the summer but I'm not sure it's possible without some serious dieting and exercise!
James B said on 13/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 12/May/14
Oh generally Vogt I thought Wayne looked 240-260 pounds in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but yeah at the end of the 60s he looked nearer 280-300 for a few years to me. Generally I'd have thought around 17-18 stone.
140-150 is perfectly normal for that height James. I can't even begin to imagine how different it would feel at that weight though, I haven't been that weight since I was about 15!
Obviously. I mean aren't you like 6'2?
Arch Stanton says on 12/May/14
Oh generally Vogt I thought Wayne looked 240-260 pounds in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but yeah at the end of the 60s he looked nearer 280-300 for a few years to me. Generally I'd have thought around 17-18 stone.
140-150 is perfectly normal for that height James. I can't even begin to imagine how different it would feel at that weight though, I haven't been that weight since I was about 15!
Obviously. I mean aren't you like 6'2?
Arch Stanton said on 12/May/14
@Randomperson Nah, Eastwood didn't look taller than Walcott at all! If anything he looked as if Walcott edged him out by a whisker but they looked roughly the same height in Eiger, not in Joe Kidd though, Walcott looked taller in that.
@Randomperson Nah, Eastwood didn't look taller than Walcott at all! If anything he looked as if Walcott edged him out by a whisker but they looked roughly the same height in Eiger, not in Joe Kidd though, Walcott looked taller in that.
Arch Stanton said on 12/May/14
Oh generally Vogt I thought Wayne looked 240-260 pounds in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but yeah at the end of the 60s he looked nearer 280-300 for a few years to me. Generally I'd have thought around 17-18 stone.
140-150 is perfectly normal for that height James. I can't even begin to imagine how different it would feel at that weight though, I haven't been that weight since I was about 15!
Oh generally Vogt I thought Wayne looked 240-260 pounds in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but yeah at the end of the 60s he looked nearer 280-300 for a few years to me. Generally I'd have thought around 17-18 stone.
140-150 is perfectly normal for that height James. I can't even begin to imagine how different it would feel at that weight though, I haven't been that weight since I was about 15!
Arch Stanton said on 12/May/14
Connery's near the camera though and Clint had already lost -1.1.5 inches by then. Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in TGTR, and Eastwood edged Sutherland out in Kelly's Heroes.
Connery's near the camera though and Clint had already lost -1.1.5 inches by then. Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in TGTR, and Eastwood edged Sutherland out in Kelly's Heroes.
James B said on 12/May/14
Vogt is 140 pound range to thin for a 5'7-5'8 guy?
Vogt is 140 pound range to thin for a 5'7-5'8 guy?
Vogt said on 11/May/14
203 is less than average for a 6'4 guy in modern days. But even in the 60s it would have been only average for someone that tall. I agree arch, wayne looked like he was pushing 300, but apparently he was only 260 even in True Grit. Hathaway told him " I want you big-bellied at 260 pounds." and aissa wayne said "the heaviest he'd ever get was about 260"
Don't mean to offend but when you saw John Wayne's legs they were pretty slim compared to the rest of him, so that's probably why he looked like he weighed more because we judge weight from the upper body.
203 is less than average for a 6'4 guy in modern days. But even in the 60s it would have been only average for someone that tall. I agree arch, wayne looked like he was pushing 300, but apparently he was only 260 even in True Grit. Hathaway told him " I want you big-bellied at 260 pounds." and aissa wayne said "the heaviest he'd ever get was about 260"
Don't mean to offend but when you saw John Wayne's legs they were pretty slim compared to the rest of him, so that's probably why he looked like he weighed more because we judge weight from the upper body.
Randomperson said on 11/May/14
In the eiger sanction eastwood looks taller then gregory walcot who played pope by an inch or more and gregory walcott is listed on here as 6 foot 4 inches tall. Next to george kennedy who was also in the movie eastwood looked the same height in some shots and half an inch taller in others. George kennedy is also listed as 6 foot 4 inches tall on this website, kennedy actually said in an interview in the 70's that he is over 6 foot 4. I'd say he could be 6'4 and a half. Which would put eastwood in the height range of between 6'4 and 6'5. But that's if all these guy's are being honest with there heights. Anyway it's a good film to check out and it might give a bit more clarity to eastwoods height either way.
In the eiger sanction eastwood looks taller then gregory walcot who played pope by an inch or more and gregory walcott is listed on here as 6 foot 4 inches tall. Next to george kennedy who was also in the movie eastwood looked the same height in some shots and half an inch taller in others. George kennedy is also listed as 6 foot 4 inches tall on this website, kennedy actually said in an interview in the 70's that he is over 6 foot 4. I'd say he could be 6'4 and a half. Which would put eastwood in the height range of between 6'4 and 6'5. But that's if all these guy's are being honest with there heights. Anyway it's a good film to check out and it might give a bit more clarity to eastwoods height either way.
James B said on 11/May/14
Well Arch maybe I am just saying that cause I am 5'7 1/2 and only weigh like 141 pounds currently
Well Arch maybe I am just saying that cause I am 5'7 1/2 and only weigh like 141 pounds currently
Arch Stanton said on 11/May/14
John Wayne at his heaviest though must have been 280-300 pounds in the late 60s, although he looked more 240-260 to me in a lot of films of the 50s and 60s. That's heavy build. 203 isn't heavy for a 6'4" guy.
John Wayne at his heaviest though must have been 280-300 pounds in the late 60s, although he looked more 240-260 to me in a lot of films of the 50s and 60s. That's heavy build. 203 isn't heavy for a 6'4" guy.
James B said on 10/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 10/May/14
I disagree James. Wayne might have looked bigger to you because of his heavy build. See the Undefeated, he looked 6'3" range next to Rock Hudson. I think peak they were both around 6'4".
Well clint at 203 pounds in some of his westerns had quite a big build as well
Arch Stanton says on 10/May/14
I disagree James. Wayne might have looked bigger to you because of his heavy build. See the Undefeated, he looked 6'3" range next to Rock Hudson. I think peak they were both around 6'4".
Well clint at 203 pounds in some of his westerns had quite a big build as well
Arch Stanton said on 10/May/14
I disagree James. Wayne might have looked bigger to you because of his heavy build. See the Undefeated, he looked 6'3" range next to Rock Hudson. I think peak they were both around 6'4".
I disagree James. Wayne might have looked bigger to you because of his heavy build. See the Undefeated, he looked 6'3" range next to Rock Hudson. I think peak they were both around 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 10/May/14
Minimum 2 inches next to guys like Lee Marvin yeah. When I say minimum I mean he really didn't even look a smidge under 6'4" next to most 6'2" listed guys of that era, not that I really though he was 6'4.5".
Minimum 2 inches next to guys like Lee Marvin yeah. When I say minimum I mean he really didn't even look a smidge under 6'4" next to most 6'2" listed guys of that era, not that I really though he was 6'4.5".
James B said on 9/May/14
Minimum 2 inches taller than 6'2 guys Arch? Maybe with his hairstyle or cowboy boots cause there is no way clint was over 6'4 at his peak. More likely under than over.
Minimum 2 inches taller than 6'2 guys Arch? Maybe with his hairstyle or cowboy boots cause there is no way clint was over 6'4 at his peak. More likely under than over.
James B said on 9/May/14
Arch john Wayne looked like a guy who could have been a big 6ft4 like say Stephenfry whereas as clint eastwood looked 6'3.
I guess john Wayne disliked clint cause he was ahead of his time whereas as Wayne was more old school.
Arch john Wayne looked like a guy who could have been a big 6ft4 like say Stephenfry whereas as clint eastwood looked 6'3.
I guess john Wayne disliked clint cause he was ahead of his time whereas as Wayne was more old school.
Wingnut said on 9/May/14
On one of the eastwood forums there's a photo of clint
Visiting john Wayne on the set of the shootist.
They are standing talking with,I think,don segal
On one of the eastwood forums there's a photo of clint
Visiting john Wayne on the set of the shootist.
They are standing talking with,I think,don segal
Arch Stanton said on 9/May/14
LOL. John Wayne was probably the only guy in the history of the world to call Eastwood a "big kid" and be justified in doing so LOL. I've heard a few negative comments from Wayne about Eastwood. I know that he sent a letter criticising High Plains Drifter as un-American for instance. I think Wayne probably saw him as a threat to his traditional cowboy image and all-American wholesome portrayal. I know that Clint has only said positive words about Wayne though. Clint would have to be pretty big for John Wayne to refer to him as big!
LOL. John Wayne was probably the only guy in the history of the world to call Eastwood a "big kid" and be justified in doing so LOL. I've heard a few negative comments from Wayne about Eastwood. I know that he sent a letter criticising High Plains Drifter as un-American for instance. I think Wayne probably saw him as a threat to his traditional cowboy image and all-American wholesome portrayal. I know that Clint has only said positive words about Wayne though. Clint would have to be pretty big for John Wayne to refer to him as big!
Arch Stanton said on 9/May/14
He's slouched in that scene though James. As I say I could see a full 6'4" up until about 1981. Stroud was a legit 6'2" guy peak I think as he was even with Robert Davi in License to Kill and looked it next to many in other films. Clint did look 6'5" in Coogan's Bluff but as you say hair and boots.. Every 6'2 listed guy he stood next to in the 60s and 70s he consistently looked minimum 2 inches taller. Stroud look like Glenn? WTF LOL? Click Here Actually he does a bit there but he usually looks nothing like him!! Goog img Al Capone if you want a G lookalike!!
I always thought Clint and John Wayne looked the same height on screen, although clearly different builds. The thing is Clint was barely shorter than Rock Hudson in Never Say Goodbye yet in the Undefeated Rock had about 1.5 inches on Wayne...
He's slouched in that scene though James. As I say I could see a full 6'4" up until about 1981. Stroud was a legit 6'2" guy peak I think as he was even with Robert Davi in License to Kill and looked it next to many in other films. Clint did look 6'5" in Coogan's Bluff but as you say hair and boots.. Every 6'2 listed guy he stood next to in the 60s and 70s he consistently looked minimum 2 inches taller. Stroud look like Glenn? WTF LOL? Click Here Actually he does a bit there but he usually looks nothing like him!! Goog img Al Capone if you want a G lookalike!!
I always thought Clint and John Wayne looked the same height on screen, although clearly different builds. The thing is Clint was barely shorter than Rock Hudson in Never Say Goodbye yet in the Undefeated Rock had about 1.5 inches on Wayne...
Wingnut said on 8/May/14
Havn't posted for a while;but here's an quote
From john Wayne it doesn't mention height,though:
69. (1973) My build-up was done through constant exposure. By the time I went overseas to visit our boys during the Second World War, they had already seen my movies when they were back home. Now their kids are grown up and their kids are seeing my movies. I'm part of the family… I think Steve McQueen and Robert Redford have a chance of becoming lasting stars. And certainly that big kid - what the hell's his name? Jesus, I have such a hard time remembering my own name sometimes. Oh, you know the one I mean, that big kid, the one that's been directing some of his own movies lately. Yeah, that's the one - Clint Eastwood!
Havn't posted for a while;but here's an quote
From john Wayne it doesn't mention height,though:
69. (1973) My build-up was done through constant exposure. By the time I went overseas to visit our boys during the Second World War, they had already seen my movies when they were back home. Now their kids are grown up and their kids are seeing my movies. I'm part of the family… I think Steve McQueen and Robert Redford have a chance of becoming lasting stars. And certainly that big kid - what the hell's his name? Jesus, I have such a hard time remembering my own name sometimes. Oh, you know the one I mean, that big kid, the one that's been directing some of his own movies lately. Yeah, that's the one - Clint Eastwood!
James B said on 7/May/14
Arch do you agree that in this scene from Dirty Harry clint does not look over 6ft3?
Click Here
Arch do you agree that in this scene from Dirty Harry clint does not look over 6ft3?
Click Here
James B said on 7/May/14
Assuming don Stroud is 6'2 I'd say clint looks 6'5 in comparison but his hair is giving him advantage. Is it just me or does don Stroud look like Glenn? LOL
Assuming don Stroud is 6'2 I'd say clint looks 6'5 in comparison but his hair is giving him advantage. Is it just me or does don Stroud look like Glenn? LOL
Arch Stanton said on 7/May/14
Must have been Sondra Locke who aged him quickly LOL!
Must have been Sondra Locke who aged him quickly LOL!
Arch Stanton said on 7/May/14
Only in the last two, Sudden Impact and Dead Pool. He looked a proper 6'4" to me up until about Any Which Way you Can in the very early 80s. That was about the time he began to seriously age too, he looks like ten years older in Sudden Impact than he did in The Gauntlet!
Only in the last two, Sudden Impact and Dead Pool. He looked a proper 6'4" to me up until about Any Which Way you Can in the very early 80s. That was about the time he began to seriously age too, he looks like ten years older in Sudden Impact than he did in The Gauntlet!
Arch Stanton said on 7/May/14
Only in the last one Sudden Impact. He looked a proper 6'4" to me up until about Any Which Way you Can in the very early 80s. That was about the time he began to seriously age too, he looks like ten years older in Sudden Impact than he did in The Gauntlet!
Only in the last one Sudden Impact. He looked a proper 6'4" to me up until about Any Which Way you Can in the very early 80s. That was about the time he began to seriously age too, he looks like ten years older in Sudden Impact than he did in The Gauntlet!
Gonzalo said on 6/May/14
In Eiger Sanction he looked the same height as George Kennedy, who was undoubtedly 1`93
In Eiger Sanction he looked the same height as George Kennedy, who was undoubtedly 1`93
James B said on 6/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 5/May/14
OI agree that he looked more 6'3" range by the early 80s I think, if you see films like Firefox and Sudden impact he looked more 6'3 to me. I could see a full 6'4" up until the late 70s anyway.
Do you think clint looked more 6'3 in Dirty Harry?
Arch Stanton says on 5/May/14
OI agree that he looked more 6'3" range by the early 80s I think, if you see films like Firefox and Sudden impact he looked more 6'3 to me. I could see a full 6'4" up until the late 70s anyway.
Do you think clint looked more 6'3 in Dirty Harry?
Arch Stanton said on 5/May/14
OI agree that he looked more 6'3" range by the early 80s I think, if you see films like Firefox and Sudden impact he looked more 6'3 to me. I could see a full 6'4" up until the late 70s anyway.
OI agree that he looked more 6'3" range by the early 80s I think, if you see films like Firefox and Sudden impact he looked more 6'3 to me. I could see a full 6'4" up until the late 70s anyway.
Arch Stanton said on 5/May/14
Actually in The Eiger Sanction Eastwood looked the same height as Gregory Walcott too walking side by side, maybe slightly shorter, a cm at best. In Joe Kidd however Walcott seemed taller.
Actually in The Eiger Sanction Eastwood looked the same height as Gregory Walcott too walking side by side, maybe slightly shorter, a cm at best. In Joe Kidd however Walcott seemed taller.
James B said on 4/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 4/May/14
James do you seriously think Eastwood looked under 6'4 in The Eiger Sanction? No way was Kennedy taller than him and did you see how lanky he actually looked in that film in jeans and a vest? If you can't see 6'4" in that film then you're unlikely to ever see it!
Yeah I'd say he could pass for 6'4 flat in eiger sanction. As I said before clint could look anywhere from 6'3 to 6'4 in his movies in the 1970s.
I remember these scenes from hang em high where 6'4 just looked unimaginable for clint when you compare him to legit 6'4ers like Liam neeson, Christopher Reeve, Jeff goldblum and Steven seagal. Seriously he looks 6'1.5-6'2 in those scenes.
Click Here
Click Here
Yet in this clip from the enforcer nearly 10 years later clint looks a lanky 6'4.
Click Here
Weird huh?
Arch Stanton says on 4/May/14
James do you seriously think Eastwood looked under 6'4 in The Eiger Sanction? No way was Kennedy taller than him and did you see how lanky he actually looked in that film in jeans and a vest? If you can't see 6'4" in that film then you're unlikely to ever see it!
Yeah I'd say he could pass for 6'4 flat in eiger sanction. As I said before clint could look anywhere from 6'3 to 6'4 in his movies in the 1970s.
I remember these scenes from hang em high where 6'4 just looked unimaginable for clint when you compare him to legit 6'4ers like Liam neeson, Christopher Reeve, Jeff goldblum and Steven seagal. Seriously he looks 6'1.5-6'2 in those scenes.
Click Here
Click Here
Yet in this clip from the enforcer nearly 10 years later clint looks a lanky 6'4.
Click Here
Weird huh?
Arch Stanton said on 4/May/14
James do you seriously think Eastwood looked under 6'4 in The Eiger Sanction? No way was Kennedy taller than him and did you see how lanky he actually looked in that film in jeans and a vest? If you can't see 6'4" in that film then you're unlikely to ever see it!
James do you seriously think Eastwood looked under 6'4 in The Eiger Sanction? No way was Kennedy taller than him and did you see how lanky he actually looked in that film in jeans and a vest? If you can't see 6'4" in that film then you're unlikely to ever see it!
IosuLM said on 29/Apr/14
Clint has a scoliosis? Maybe, it's the reason of loss of height
Clint has a scoliosis? Maybe, it's the reason of loss of height
James B said on 26/Apr/14
Dont get me wrong I mean in the any which way you can films he was in tremendous shape at 15 stone of muscle. He reminded me of hugh jackman in that movie in terms of build and looks. He was starting to get more wrinkles and his hair was greying in that movie but he still looked great though.
In the 80s he may have looked a lot older all of a sudden but he was at his heaviest and most muscular during that era. In the 90s though he got a lot thinner.
Dont get me wrong I mean in the any which way you can films he was in tremendous shape at 15 stone of muscle. He reminded me of hugh jackman in that movie in terms of build and looks. He was starting to get more wrinkles and his hair was greying in that movie but he still looked great though.
In the 80s he may have looked a lot older all of a sudden but he was at his heaviest and most muscular during that era. In the 90s though he got a lot thinner.
James B said on 26/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 25/Apr/14
Click Here
Can't see ground or footwear but if you don't think he looked anything less than 6'4" there and in that film then you're never likely to agree!
In the pic he looks 6'4 yes. Personally I think clint looked his best in fistful of dollars.
Would you agree clint started to look not as good in any which way but lose?
Arch Stanton says on 25/Apr/14
Click Here
Can't see ground or footwear but if you don't think he looked anything less than 6'4" there and in that film then you're never likely to agree!
In the pic he looks 6'4 yes. Personally I think clint looked his best in fistful of dollars.
Would you agree clint started to look not as good in any which way but lose?
Arch Stanton said on 25/Apr/14
Click Here
Can't see ground or footwear but if you don't think he looked anything less than 6'4" there and in that film then you're never likely to agree!
Click Here
Can't see ground or footwear but if you don't think he looked anything less than 6'4" there and in that film then you're never likely to agree!
Arch Stanton said on 25/Apr/14
James, watch Paint Your Wagon. He had an easy 2 inches on 6'2" Marvin. There is a scene in which they're stood side by side at a wedding and Eastwood actually looked 6'4.5" in comparison. He looked his all time best in that movie I think. And he was having an affair with Jean Seberg on set!
James, watch Paint Your Wagon. He had an easy 2 inches on 6'2" Marvin. There is a scene in which they're stood side by side at a wedding and Eastwood actually looked 6'4.5" in comparison. He looked his all time best in that movie I think. And he was having an affair with Jean Seberg on set!
James B said on 24/Apr/14
play misty for me was one of his few movies where a full 6'4 looked believable for him I must say. Even 6'5 would not be hard to imagine for him in that particular movie. Ironic though how in Dirty Harry which came out the same year he only looked 6'3 or 6'3 1/2.
play misty for me was one of his few movies where a full 6'4 looked believable for him I must say. Even 6'5 would not be hard to imagine for him in that particular movie. Ironic though how in Dirty Harry which came out the same year he only looked 6'3 or 6'3 1/2.
Sam said on 24/Apr/14
In Gran Torino, because of his "gook" co-stars it makes Clint seem taller and my girlfriend at the time thought he was still close to my height but I knew better!
In Gran Torino, because of his "gook" co-stars it makes Clint seem taller and my girlfriend at the time thought he was still close to my height but I knew better!
James B said on 24/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 24/Apr/14
Yeah but when you start saying things like "Clint was only 6'2" as Neeson was 6'3"... You're claiming even Neeson wasn't 6'4" peak now which is just ridiculous. He's about as solid an example of a proper 6'4 guy as you can get. He may have lost a bit today but you seem to have a very hard job believing anybody could really be 6'4". Seagal and Robbins seem to be the only ones you believe are that big.
No I think Neeson was a legit 6'4
Arch Stanton says on 24/Apr/14
Yeah but when you start saying things like "Clint was only 6'2" as Neeson was 6'3"... You're claiming even Neeson wasn't 6'4" peak now which is just ridiculous. He's about as solid an example of a proper 6'4 guy as you can get. He may have lost a bit today but you seem to have a very hard job believing anybody could really be 6'4". Seagal and Robbins seem to be the only ones you believe are that big.
No I think Neeson was a legit 6'4
Arch Stanton said on 24/Apr/14
Yeah but when you start saying things like "Clint was only 6'2" as Neeson was 6'3"... You're claiming even Neeson wasn't 6'4" peak now which is just ridiculous. He's about as solid an example of a proper 6'4 guy as you can get. He may have lost a bit today but you seem to have a very hard job believing anybody could really be 6'4". Seagal and Robbins seem to be the only ones you believe are that big.
Yeah but when you start saying things like "Clint was only 6'2" as Neeson was 6'3"... You're claiming even Neeson wasn't 6'4" peak now which is just ridiculous. He's about as solid an example of a proper 6'4 guy as you can get. He may have lost a bit today but you seem to have a very hard job believing anybody could really be 6'4". Seagal and Robbins seem to be the only ones you believe are that big.
James B said on 23/Apr/14
Also Arch I only said I was taller before because I never knew how to measure myself properly.
Also Arch I only said I was taller before because I never knew how to measure myself properly.
James B said on 23/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 23/Apr/14
Eastwood looked 6'1" range in Gran Torino I think (although it might be because of the short "gook" actors in it) It was in Million Dollar Baby he looked nothing over 6' flat. James, just because you're a lot shorter than you claimed it doesn't mean Clint was. There's not a single film from the 80s or early 90s where Clint looked as low as a flat 6'2". Please stop with the "Clint was 6'2" max" claims. You're even downgrading Jackman to 6'1 now...
What are you talking about? I never said he was 6'2 max. I just said in my opinion he could look 188/189cm in some of his later movies from the 80s and 90s. In his earlier movies like fistful of dollars, play misty for me and the gauntlet he looked at least 191cm.
Also rob agrees with me that 6'1.5 is not impossible for Hugh jackman either.
Arch Stanton says on 23/Apr/14
Eastwood looked 6'1" range in Gran Torino I think (although it might be because of the short "gook" actors in it) It was in Million Dollar Baby he looked nothing over 6' flat. James, just because you're a lot shorter than you claimed it doesn't mean Clint was. There's not a single film from the 80s or early 90s where Clint looked as low as a flat 6'2". Please stop with the "Clint was 6'2" max" claims. You're even downgrading Jackman to 6'1 now...
What are you talking about? I never said he was 6'2 max. I just said in my opinion he could look 188/189cm in some of his later movies from the 80s and 90s. In his earlier movies like fistful of dollars, play misty for me and the gauntlet he looked at least 191cm.
Also rob agrees with me that 6'1.5 is not impossible for Hugh jackman either.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Apr/14
Eastwood looked 6'1" range in Gran Torino I think (although it might be because of the short "gook" actors in it) It was in Million Dollar Baby he looked nothing over 6' flat. James, just because you're a lot shorter than you claimed it doesn't mean Clint was. There's not a single film from the 80s or early 90s where Clint looked as low as a flat 6'2". Please stop with the "Clint was 6'2" max" claims. You're even downgrading Jackman to 6'1 now...
Eastwood looked 6'1" range in Gran Torino I think (although it might be because of the short "gook" actors in it) It was in Million Dollar Baby he looked nothing over 6' flat. James, just because you're a lot shorter than you claimed it doesn't mean Clint was. There's not a single film from the 80s or early 90s where Clint looked as low as a flat 6'2". Please stop with the "Clint was 6'2" max" claims. You're even downgrading Jackman to 6'1 now...
James B said on 22/Apr/14
Sam says on 22/Apr/14
Gran Torino to be a big dude, closer to 6'4" than 6'0"
Lol is that a joke? In gran Torino looked MUCH closer to 6'0 than 6'4. Even back in his movies from the 80s only looked between 6'0 and 6'4 like 6'2. In his 60s and 70s films looked much nearer 6'4 than 6'0 though.
Sam says on 22/Apr/14
Gran Torino to be a big dude, closer to 6'4" than 6'0"
Lol is that a joke? In gran Torino looked MUCH closer to 6'0 than 6'4. Even back in his movies from the 80s only looked between 6'0 and 6'4 like 6'2. In his 60s and 70s films looked much nearer 6'4 than 6'0 though.
James B said on 22/Apr/14
In gran Torino I thought he looked 6'0-6'1
In gran Torino I thought he looked 6'0-6'1
Sam said on 22/Apr/14
Yeah, he still seems on film in both Blood Work and Gran Torino to be a big dude, closer to 6'4" than 6'0", it seems to be only off-screen that his true height loss is apparent. Robbins pretty much towered him in 2004/05.
Yeah, he still seems on film in both Blood Work and Gran Torino to be a big dude, closer to 6'4" than 6'0", it seems to be only off-screen that his true height loss is apparent. Robbins pretty much towered him in 2004/05.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Apr/14
No James. Eastwood actually looked 6'4 in that film if Daniels is 6'3" but as Sam says he tends to slouch. That's why I said it's an anomaly for that period, I mean 6'4" looks a joke next to Tim Robbins in the Mystic River promo photos of course and that was only a year later.
No James. Eastwood actually looked 6'4 in that film if Daniels is 6'3" but as Sam says he tends to slouch. That's why I said it's an anomaly for that period, I mean 6'4" looks a joke next to Tim Robbins in the Mystic River promo photos of course and that was only a year later.
James B said on 21/Apr/14
Sam says on 21/Apr/14
Yeah, Clint held his own with Jeff Daniels, which is an anomaly, but Daniels can be a bit slouchy and was supposed to be presenting a Dude-like demeanor in the role. Actually, Daniels would have been a good back-up if Bridges was unavailable for The Big Lebowski.
In blood work clint looked near 6'2 would you agree?
Sam says on 21/Apr/14
Yeah, Clint held his own with Jeff Daniels, which is an anomaly, but Daniels can be a bit slouchy and was supposed to be presenting a Dude-like demeanor in the role. Actually, Daniels would have been a good back-up if Bridges was unavailable for The Big Lebowski.
In blood work clint looked near 6'2 would you agree?
Sam said on 21/Apr/14
Yeah, Clint held his own with Jeff Daniels, which is an anomaly, but Daniels can be a bit slouchy and was supposed to be presenting a Dude-like demeanor in the role. Actually, Daniels would have been a good back-up if Bridges was unavailable for The Big Lebowski.
Yeah, Clint held his own with Jeff Daniels, which is an anomaly, but Daniels can be a bit slouchy and was supposed to be presenting a Dude-like demeanor in the role. Actually, Daniels would have been a good back-up if Bridges was unavailable for The Big Lebowski.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/14
OK, I'll remember that.
OK, I'll remember that.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/14
Rob, how does a 9-10 film limit on mentioning films sound to you? That way next time I help you out on the empty pages for prolific actors I'll know what you consider to be the limit. Obviously with lesser prolific new actors you only need to mention one or two and for quite a lot of actors mentioning just 4 or 5 should suffice though. It depends on the actor of course but no more than 9 or 10 sounds reasonable don't you think for veteran actors who have over 50 films and are well known for quite a lot of different roles?
Editor Rob
Rob, how does a 9-10 film limit on mentioning films sound to you? That way next time I help you out on the empty pages for prolific actors I'll know what you consider to be the limit. Obviously with lesser prolific new actors you only need to mention one or two and for quite a lot of actors mentioning just 4 or 5 should suffice though. It depends on the actor of course but no more than 9 or 10 sounds reasonable don't you think for veteran actors who have over 50 films and are well known for quite a lot of different roles?
Editor Rob I think 9 is probably a max I think.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/14
Fair enough. I agree with your choices out of those. It's difficult when you've seen almost every film of Clint's to draw a line at what he is best known for and exclude some because there isn't a single film of his I haven't enjoyed, even if films like Pink Cadillac and City Heat were among his weaker efforts.
Fair enough. I agree with your choices out of those. It's difficult when you've seen almost every film of Clint's to draw a line at what he is best known for and exclude some because there isn't a single film of his I haven't enjoyed, even if films like Pink Cadillac and City Heat were among his weaker efforts.
James B said on 18/Apr/14
Arch in where eagles dare clint looked about 190cm in my opinion. In dead pool looked 6'2ish however next to liam neeson looked a good 6'3 I agree.
Arch in where eagles dare clint looked about 190cm in my opinion. In dead pool looked 6'2ish however next to liam neeson looked a good 6'3 I agree.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Apr/14
Rob can you add some more films, best known for films like The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly, the Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Hang 'Em High, Joe Kidd, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, Every Which Way But Loose, Escape from Alcatraz, Firefox, Pale Rider, Heartbreak Ridge, The Bridges of Madison County, Space Cowboys, Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino.
Editor Rob
Rob can you add some more films, best known for films like The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly, the Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Hang 'Em High, Joe Kidd, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, Every Which Way But Loose, Escape from Alcatraz, Firefox, Pale Rider, Heartbreak Ridge, The Bridges of Madison County, Space Cowboys, Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino.
Editor Rob I need to watch the amount I put in sometimes, I'll add a few more though.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Apr/14
There are certainly some questionable comparisons like Fleming as you say Sam and he did look a bit shorter than Gregory Walcott in Joe Kidd, but there's at least a dozen films in which a full 6'4" seems to check out in comparison to every other actor who claimed a certain height and as you say he always looked a couple of inches taller than 6'2" listed guys. I find it hard to believe the majority were wrong. In Where Eagles Dare they did their best to reduce the height difference between Eastwood and Burton through camera angles and at times it could look only 4 or 5 inches but you could often see during level shots etc just how much taller Eastwood really was than Burton and it was easily 6 inches. See the scene for instance just after they shoot the Germans inside the castle room and Burton is holding the notebook of names and Clint is stood next to him. Eastwood towered him. He began to lose height in the 1980s I think and by 1988 I think he was a little over 6'3", Neeson being 6'4.25 peak according to himself which looks believable. One anomaly of later is that in Blood Work from 2002 Eastwood actually looked easily an inch taller than Jeff Daniels in most scenes, although in one scene it looked the other way around.
There are certainly some questionable comparisons like Fleming as you say Sam and he did look a bit shorter than Gregory Walcott in Joe Kidd, but there's at least a dozen films in which a full 6'4" seems to check out in comparison to every other actor who claimed a certain height and as you say he always looked a couple of inches taller than 6'2" listed guys. I find it hard to believe the majority were wrong. In Where Eagles Dare they did their best to reduce the height difference between Eastwood and Burton through camera angles and at times it could look only 4 or 5 inches but you could often see during level shots etc just how much taller Eastwood really was than Burton and it was easily 6 inches. See the scene for instance just after they shoot the Germans inside the castle room and Burton is holding the notebook of names and Clint is stood next to him. Eastwood towered him. He began to lose height in the 1980s I think and by 1988 I think he was a little over 6'3", Neeson being 6'4.25 peak according to himself which looks believable. One anomaly of later is that in Blood Work from 2002 Eastwood actually looked easily an inch taller than Jeff Daniels in most scenes, although in one scene it looked the other way around.
Sam said on 17/Apr/14
I have to say in some of those photos with 6'3" Eric Fleming and the weirdly angled one with Buddy Ebsen, it's hard to believe a full 6'4" from those. However, look at him next George Kennedy, he's quite equal and there's no way Kennedy was under 6'4" IMO and Eastwood was clearly a couple inches taller than 6'2"ers like Gene Hackman and Lee Van Cleef, as well as Lee Marvin as Arch mentioned. Also, I don't think he looks under 6'3.5" next to 6'4" Liam Neeson at 57 y/o in The Dead Pool.
I have to say in some of those photos with 6'3" Eric Fleming and the weirdly angled one with Buddy Ebsen, it's hard to believe a full 6'4" from those. However, look at him next George Kennedy, he's quite equal and there's no way Kennedy was under 6'4" IMO and Eastwood was clearly a couple inches taller than 6'2"ers like Gene Hackman and Lee Van Cleef, as well as Lee Marvin as Arch mentioned. Also, I don't think he looks under 6'3.5" next to 6'4" Liam Neeson at 57 y/o in The Dead Pool.
James B said on 16/Apr/14
Lillo thomas says on 16/Apr/14
Clint Eastwood was 6'3 at best peak . No way 6'4 barefoot.
Well in the Gauntlet looked close to 6'4.
Lillo thomas says on 16/Apr/14
Clint Eastwood was 6'3 at best peak . No way 6'4 barefoot.
Well in the Gauntlet looked close to 6'4.
Lewis said on 16/Apr/14
These days Clint is probably 6' on the nose. Age on the bones have not been well to him.
These days Clint is probably 6' on the nose. Age on the bones have not been well to him.
Lillo thomas said on 16/Apr/14
Clint Eastwood was 6'3 at best peak . No way 6'4 barefoot.
Clint Eastwood was 6'3 at best peak . No way 6'4 barefoot.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Apr/14
Yeah it's a good idea sometimes I think. You value it more I find when you pop in after a while and still see the same comments appearing :-)
Yeah it's a good idea sometimes I think. You value it more I find when you pop in after a while and still see the same comments appearing :-)
James B said on 15/Apr/14
If you stood a peak Seagal and peak clint side by side there would be about 1 inch between the 2.
If you stood a peak Seagal and peak clint side by side there would be about 1 inch between the 2.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Apr/14
Greetings Rob and co hope you're well, I'm still on a break from the site, but I'll comment occasionally. LOL, enough of the Jackman-Beckham comparisons! Neither of them are really comparable to Eastwood.If anybody doubts Eastwood was 6'4 peak watch Paint Your Wagon, he had a strong 2 inches on Lee Marvin, actually looked 6'4.5" if Marvin was 6'2" at the time. Also recommend watching Any Which Way You Can where he looked a good 2 inches taller than 6'2" listed William Smith too aside from all the other comparisons we frequently talked about in the past. Not 6'3", he really looked the full 6'4" in most comparisons peak.
Editor Rob
Greetings Rob and co hope you're well, I'm still on a break from the site, but I'll comment occasionally. LOL, enough of the Jackman-Beckham comparisons! Neither of them are really comparable to Eastwood.If anybody doubts Eastwood was 6'4 peak watch Paint Your Wagon, he had a strong 2 inches on Lee Marvin, actually looked 6'4.5" if Marvin was 6'2" at the time. Also recommend watching Any Which Way You Can where he looked a good 2 inches taller than 6'2" listed William Smith too aside from all the other comparisons we frequently talked about in the past. Not 6'3", he really looked the full 6'4" in most comparisons peak.
Editor Rob well, a break is always useful. I sometimes need a break myself, and it's only very occasionally at an event I don't do much with the site.
Chaz said on 14/Apr/14
Armold Schwarzenegger could Bench more than 350lbs lol,he bench 212.5kg in 1968 powerlifting Contest,that was at 260lbs body weight,and could do sets of 12-15 reps with 3 plates 315lbs in he's peack bodybuilding days at only 235lbs,
and Beckham is as thin as a rake,have you seen them Arms? lucky if they could push 140lbs
Armold Schwarzenegger could Bench more than 350lbs lol,he bench 212.5kg in 1968 powerlifting Contest,that was at 260lbs body weight,and could do sets of 12-15 reps with 3 plates 315lbs in he's peack bodybuilding days at only 235lbs,
and Beckham is as thin as a rake,have you seen them Arms? lucky if they could push 140lbs
Sam said on 10/Apr/14
In terms of strength? Probably a lot less at peak upper-body strength but he's very lean, with powerful legs as is necessary of football/soccer players. Beckham has never struck me as having much of a personality from what little I've seen of him. I don't know if he tries to laconic like Eastwood but Eastwood is an actor and subscribes to the Cooper school of communicating a lot with little at the surface.
In terms of strength? Probably a lot less at peak upper-body strength but he's very lean, with powerful legs as is necessary of football/soccer players. Beckham has never struck me as having much of a personality from what little I've seen of him. I don't know if he tries to laconic like Eastwood but Eastwood is an actor and subscribes to the Cooper school of communicating a lot with little at the surface.
James B said on 9/Apr/14
How does beckham compare to jackman and eastwood?
How does beckham compare to jackman and eastwood?
chucker said on 9/Apr/14
I they are very close in terms of strengh (Eastwood 1978, Jackman present). Jackman is pretty strong to BP 315. Guys with longer arms alway have a disadvange in the BP department. More range of motion makes it more difficult than their shorter armed counterparts. Eastwood has long arms too.
I they are very close in terms of strengh (Eastwood 1978, Jackman present). Jackman is pretty strong to BP 315. Guys with longer arms alway have a disadvange in the BP department. More range of motion makes it more difficult than their shorter armed counterparts. Eastwood has long arms too.
Sam said on 9/Apr/14
Perhaps I'm wrong...I wasn't sure if Eastwood could have bench-pressed more than 300 pounds like Jackman did but it's possible. I think Jackamn's top bench was 315 lb, Schwarzenegger around 350 lb and Shaq 400+ lb, Lou Ferrigno probably close to 400 lb. I'd be Joe Manganiello would be up there as well.
Perhaps I'm wrong...I wasn't sure if Eastwood could have bench-pressed more than 300 pounds like Jackman did but it's possible. I think Jackamn's top bench was 315 lb, Schwarzenegger around 350 lb and Shaq 400+ lb, Lou Ferrigno probably close to 400 lb. I'd be Joe Manganiello would be up there as well.
chucker said on 7/Apr/14
Jackmans stonger than Eastwood ever was?? I respectfully disagree. Have you seen the movie Any which way but Loose. Eastwood looked like one strong SOB!
Jackmans stonger than Eastwood ever was?? I respectfully disagree. Have you seen the movie Any which way but Loose. Eastwood looked like one strong SOB!
James B said on 2/Apr/14
Sam says on 2/Apr/14
I wouldn't be surprised that when he's fully trained for the Wolverine role, Jackman's stronger than Eastwood ever was...but Jackman can't help but seem like a nice guy who's always going to do the right thing even in that role, Eastwood's guys back in the day were almost as nasty as the villains and would pretty much shoot you for looking at them funny. Beckham isn't even an actor, so it's hard to compare personality but physically he's obviously smaller.
I was thinking about Death Rides a Horse where they even put John Philip Law, who was taller and bigger than Eastwood, in basically the same poncho and gave him a similar role, but he just couldn't come close to the same screen presence as Eastwood as the Man with No Name.
In dead pool eastwood was stronger thn hugh jckman
Sam says on 2/Apr/14
I wouldn't be surprised that when he's fully trained for the Wolverine role, Jackman's stronger than Eastwood ever was...but Jackman can't help but seem like a nice guy who's always going to do the right thing even in that role, Eastwood's guys back in the day were almost as nasty as the villains and would pretty much shoot you for looking at them funny. Beckham isn't even an actor, so it's hard to compare personality but physically he's obviously smaller.
I was thinking about Death Rides a Horse where they even put John Philip Law, who was taller and bigger than Eastwood, in basically the same poncho and gave him a similar role, but he just couldn't come close to the same screen presence as Eastwood as the Man with No Name.
In dead pool eastwood was stronger thn hugh jckman
Sam said on 2/Apr/14
I wouldn't be surprised that when he's fully trained for the Wolverine role, Jackman's stronger than Eastwood ever was...but Jackman can't help but seem like a nice guy who's always going to do the right thing even in that role, Eastwood's guys back in the day were almost as nasty as the villains and would pretty much shoot you for looking at them funny. Beckham isn't even an actor, so it's hard to compare personality but physically he's obviously smaller.
I was thinking about Death Rides a Horse where they even put John Philip Law, who was taller and bigger than Eastwood, in basically the same poncho and gave him a similar role, but he just couldn't come close to the same screen presence as Eastwood as the Man with No Name.
I wouldn't be surprised that when he's fully trained for the Wolverine role, Jackman's stronger than Eastwood ever was...but Jackman can't help but seem like a nice guy who's always going to do the right thing even in that role, Eastwood's guys back in the day were almost as nasty as the villains and would pretty much shoot you for looking at them funny. Beckham isn't even an actor, so it's hard to compare personality but physically he's obviously smaller.
I was thinking about Death Rides a Horse where they even put John Philip Law, who was taller and bigger than Eastwood, in basically the same poncho and gave him a similar role, but he just couldn't come close to the same screen presence as Eastwood as the Man with No Name.
James B said on 1/Apr/14
Sam says on 1/Apr/14
Clint is also a top-knotch director, he takes after John Ford a lot in his style, with a sense of economy he probably got from Don Siegel. There's little obvious Leone influence outside of High Plains Drifter. I can see a dim resemblance in both Beckman and Jackman to a young Eastwood but both are obviously not at the stage to have as storied careers and, although both are very fit, strong dudes, not as formidable in nature
Eastwood was probably stronger than Beckham and had a larger frame. Clint weighed like 203 pounds in his 30s. Beckham on the other hand weighs like 154 pounds these days and is more like Bruce lee in terms of build and quickness.
Jackman on the other hand is very robust but has to work hard for it. That said dont buy his listing of 15 stone 5 he looks more like 14 stone range to me. In my opinion he as well he looks more like 6'1.5 or 6'1 in stature does not look a legit 6'2.
Sam says on 1/Apr/14
Clint is also a top-knotch director, he takes after John Ford a lot in his style, with a sense of economy he probably got from Don Siegel. There's little obvious Leone influence outside of High Plains Drifter. I can see a dim resemblance in both Beckman and Jackman to a young Eastwood but both are obviously not at the stage to have as storied careers and, although both are very fit, strong dudes, not as formidable in nature
Eastwood was probably stronger than Beckham and had a larger frame. Clint weighed like 203 pounds in his 30s. Beckham on the other hand weighs like 154 pounds these days and is more like Bruce lee in terms of build and quickness.
Jackman on the other hand is very robust but has to work hard for it. That said dont buy his listing of 15 stone 5 he looks more like 14 stone range to me. In my opinion he as well he looks more like 6'1.5 or 6'1 in stature does not look a legit 6'2.
Sam said on 1/Apr/14
Clint is also a top-knotch director, he takes after John Ford a lot in his style, with a sense of economy he probably got from Don Siegel. There's little obvious Leone influence outside of High Plains Drifter. I can see a dim resemblance in both Beckman and Jackman to a young Eastwood but both are obviously not at the stage to have as storied careers and, although both are very fit, strong dudes, not as formidable in nature.
Clint is also a top-knotch director, he takes after John Ford a lot in his style, with a sense of economy he probably got from Don Siegel. There's little obvious Leone influence outside of High Plains Drifter. I can see a dim resemblance in both Beckman and Jackman to a young Eastwood but both are obviously not at the stage to have as storied careers and, although both are very fit, strong dudes, not as formidable in nature.
James B said on 1/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 1/Apr/14
Agreed Sam. I actually thought Clint looked at his best in the late 60s and early 70s James, more rugged and weathered and more virile than he was smooth faced in the 50s. Looked better with the beard than clean shaven too. James, Beckham spends thousands of dollars on his appearance and undoubtedly spends considerable time every day to look the way he does, he didn't use to look like that, see his mid 1990s United days! I can't imagine Clint being the same, although it is clear he always took good care of himself. Beckham's clearly trying to look like Steve McQueen/Clint Eastwood.
I dunno I think even from a young age becks and clint looked alike
Go to 4:42 in the video here
Click Here
If you look at clint eastwood as a child in that clip and beckham at the same age even back then they looked very similar (especially around the eyes)
Arch Stanton says on 1/Apr/14
Agreed Sam. I actually thought Clint looked at his best in the late 60s and early 70s James, more rugged and weathered and more virile than he was smooth faced in the 50s. Looked better with the beard than clean shaven too. James, Beckham spends thousands of dollars on his appearance and undoubtedly spends considerable time every day to look the way he does, he didn't use to look like that, see his mid 1990s United days! I can't imagine Clint being the same, although it is clear he always took good care of himself. Beckham's clearly trying to look like Steve McQueen/Clint Eastwood.
I dunno I think even from a young age becks and clint looked alike
Go to 4:42 in the video here
Click Here
If you look at clint eastwood as a child in that clip and beckham at the same age even back then they looked very similar (especially around the eyes)
Arch Stanton said on 1/Apr/14
Agreed Sam. I actually thought Clint looked at his best in the late 60s and early 70s James, more rugged and weathered and more virile than he was smooth faced in the 50s. Looked better with the beard than clean shaven too. James, Beckham spends thousands of dollars on his appearance and undoubtedly spends considerable time every day to look the way he does, he didn't use to look like that, see his mid 1990s United days! I can't imagine Clint being the same, although it is clear he always took good care of himself. Beckham's clearly trying to look like Steve McQueen/Clint Eastwood.
Agreed Sam. I actually thought Clint looked at his best in the late 60s and early 70s James, more rugged and weathered and more virile than he was smooth faced in the 50s. Looked better with the beard than clean shaven too. James, Beckham spends thousands of dollars on his appearance and undoubtedly spends considerable time every day to look the way he does, he didn't use to look like that, see his mid 1990s United days! I can't imagine Clint being the same, although it is clear he always took good care of himself. Beckham's clearly trying to look like Steve McQueen/Clint Eastwood.
James B said on 31/Mar/14
littlesue says on 31/Mar/14
I would say to most women Beckham a better height than Eastwood although I agree that Eastwood more charismatic and smarter.
I bet a young eastwood could get more women than beckham. I am sure there are plenty of women would like a near 6'4 guy to a 5'11 man.
littlesue says on 31/Mar/14
I would say to most women Beckham a better height than Eastwood although I agree that Eastwood more charismatic and smarter.
I bet a young eastwood could get more women than beckham. I am sure there are plenty of women would like a near 6'4 guy to a 5'11 man.
littlesue said on 31/Mar/14
I would say to most women Beckham a better height than Eastwood although I agree that Eastwood more charismatic and smarter.
I would say to most women Beckham a better height than Eastwood although I agree that Eastwood more charismatic and smarter.
Sam said on 31/Mar/14
Clint undoubtedly has a charitable side, too. There's an amusing quote from Hugh Jackman about his less than friendly interaction with Eastwood, on the other hand. I understand Eastwood gets pretty fuming mad when someone brings up his checkered love life as a bit of a womanizing, faithless scoundrel but that is personal stuff. No matter what I've read about his personal life or politics, I'm still a fan of Clint and his movies, the guy's a badass.
Clint undoubtedly has a charitable side, too. There's an amusing quote from Hugh Jackman about his less than friendly interaction with Eastwood, on the other hand. I understand Eastwood gets pretty fuming mad when someone brings up his checkered love life as a bit of a womanizing, faithless scoundrel but that is personal stuff. No matter what I've read about his personal life or politics, I'm still a fan of Clint and his movies, the guy's a badass.
James B said on 30/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 29/Mar/14
Oh that's undoubtedly true. Eastwood wouldn't be up on British comedy and Gervais is sort of out of his league over in the states IMO. I can quite imagine that would be Eastwood's response to them, he is cantankerous and quite a lot like he is in films in RL.
Gervais and Kate winslet we're born in a town called 'Reading' which is only 17 miles away from where I live. Small world eh?
Arch Stanton says on 29/Mar/14
Oh that's undoubtedly true. Eastwood wouldn't be up on British comedy and Gervais is sort of out of his league over in the states IMO. I can quite imagine that would be Eastwood's response to them, he is cantankerous and quite a lot like he is in films in RL.
Gervais and Kate winslet we're born in a town called 'Reading' which is only 17 miles away from where I live. Small world eh?
Knowen said on 29/Mar/14
He was an inch shorter than 6ft2,5 ali, ali was about an inch shorter than harve wich makes harve 6ft3,5
He was an inch shorter than 6ft2,5 ali, ali was about an inch shorter than harve wich makes harve 6ft3,5
IosuLM said on 29/Mar/14
Minute 2.53.... Chevy Chase (192 cms) and Charlton Heston (65 years old)
Click Here
Clint and Charlton
Click Here
Minute 2.53.... Chevy Chase (192 cms) and Charlton Heston (65 years old)
Click Here
Clint and Charlton
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 29/Mar/14
Yeah that's the impression I got Sam from his biographies. He can be friendly and easy going one moment but if anybody does the slightest thing to cross him or annoy him he'll turn on you and come down on you like a ton of bricks. Not a man you want to be on the wrong side of! That's a Taurus trait though, the bull who is friendly until crossed and shown the red flag, I'm a typical Taurus myself, but Clint's birthday May 20 is actually Gemini.
Yeah that's the impression I got Sam from his biographies. He can be friendly and easy going one moment but if anybody does the slightest thing to cross him or annoy him he'll turn on you and come down on you like a ton of bricks. Not a man you want to be on the wrong side of! That's a Taurus trait though, the bull who is friendly until crossed and shown the red flag, I'm a typical Taurus myself, but Clint's birthday May 20 is actually Gemini.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Mar/14
Oh that's undoubtedly true. Eastwood wouldn't be up on British comedy and Gervais is sort of out of his league over in the states IMO. I can quite imagine that would be Eastwood's response to them, he is cantankerous and quite a lot like he is in films in RL.
Oh that's undoubtedly true. Eastwood wouldn't be up on British comedy and Gervais is sort of out of his league over in the states IMO. I can quite imagine that would be Eastwood's response to them, he is cantankerous and quite a lot like he is in films in RL.
IosuLM said on 28/Mar/14
Clint next to Julio Iglesia (6.1)
Click Here
Julio with Enrique (6 1.5)
Click Here
Clint next to Julio Iglesia (6.1)
Click Here
Julio with Enrique (6 1.5)
Click Here
Lillo thomas said on 27/Mar/14
James b . What the hell you are talking about ? In the pic you posted Clint eastwood doesn't look 6'4 at all with 6'1 peak arnold. I see less than 2 inches difference there. By the way cute babies.
James b . What the hell you are talking about ? In the pic you posted Clint eastwood doesn't look 6'4 at all with 6'1 peak arnold. I see less than 2 inches difference there. By the way cute babies.
James B said on 27/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
I tell you a funny story from Ricky's own mouth:
"Apparently, I don’t know if this is true but I hope it is, I’ve heard it from a few reports, when we went up to get our awards apparently Clint Eastwood turned to someone that he was with and went, Who the **** are they?"
LOL
Ricky might have been joking though?
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
I tell you a funny story from Ricky's own mouth:
"Apparently, I don’t know if this is true but I hope it is, I’ve heard it from a few reports, when we went up to get our awards apparently Clint Eastwood turned to someone that he was with and went, Who the **** are they?"
LOL
Ricky might have been joking though?
Arch Stanton said on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
James B said on 26/Mar/14
Off topic but is it just me or does clint Eastwood bear a resemblance to ricky Gervais in the good the bad and the ugly?
Click Here
Off topic but is it just me or does clint Eastwood bear a resemblance to ricky Gervais in the good the bad and the ugly?
Click Here
jervis said on 26/Mar/14
Clint looks more like 6ft3 next to Arnold about 2 inches taller.I would put clints peak at a bit lower than 6ft4' maybe 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.
Clint looks more like 6ft3 next to Arnold about 2 inches taller.I would put clints peak at a bit lower than 6ft4' maybe 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.
jervis said on 26/Mar/14
I think looking at eastwood and Fleming again they look the same hight.
I think looking at eastwood and Fleming again they look the same hight.
jervis said on 26/Mar/14
Very close in hight with Fleming.
Very close in hight with Fleming.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Mar/14
He looked 6'3 in the 80s yeah.
He looked 6'3 in the 80s yeah.
James B said on 25/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
Well would you agree clint looked shorter in heartbreak ridge and the dead pool compared to how tall he looked in the enforcer for instance? I think between 1976-1978 clint lost a bit of height.
Arch Stanton says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
Well would you agree clint looked shorter in heartbreak ridge and the dead pool compared to how tall he looked in the enforcer for instance? I think between 1976-1978 clint lost a bit of height.
jervis said on 24/Mar/14
Looked the same hight as 6ft4 Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz to me.Also looked taller by about 1 inch than 6ft2 big Bill Smith and about 1 inch shorter than Neeson in thr dead pool.He looked in the 6ft3 range to me in the eghties,in the nineties more 6ft2.5.Down to 6ft2 in 2000 to 2005.From age 75 to 80 droped below 6Ft2,now at almost 84 he is about 6ft1 or 6ft.5 depending on posture.
Looked the same hight as 6ft4 Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz to me.Also looked taller by about 1 inch than 6ft2 big Bill Smith and about 1 inch shorter than Neeson in thr dead pool.He looked in the 6ft3 range to me in the eghties,in the nineties more 6ft2.5.Down to 6ft2 in 2000 to 2005.From age 75 to 80 droped below 6Ft2,now at almost 84 he is about 6ft1 or 6ft.5 depending on posture.
Lillo thomas said on 24/Mar/14
Nick of course at 85 years of age . Clint eastwood is expected to lose height but between 1-2 inches. If clint eastwood was really 6'4 peak than means he is about 4 inches shorter . This fact is very hard to believe. My father is 82 years old and about 1.5 inch shorter from his peak.
Nick of course at 85 years of age . Clint eastwood is expected to lose height but between 1-2 inches. If clint eastwood was really 6'4 peak than means he is about 4 inches shorter . This fact is very hard to believe. My father is 82 years old and about 1.5 inch shorter from his peak.
Lillo thomas said on 24/Mar/14
James B Clint eastwood never give me a legit 6'4 impression watching his films as a kid. I always thought he was between 6'2 and 6'3.
James B Clint eastwood never give me a legit 6'4 impression watching his films as a kid. I always thought he was between 6'2 and 6'3.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
James B said on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
Did me remarking that he looked 6'2 in escape from Alcatraz prompt you to have another look at his peak height? In all of films from the 80s and up to 2002 he looked like a strong 6'2 guy but not 6'4 or even 6'3.
In blood work which was only made in 2002 clint looked 188cm since then though he has been looking shorter than that
Editor Rob
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
Did me remarking that he looked 6'2 in escape from Alcatraz prompt you to have another look at his peak height? In all of films from the 80s and up to 2002 he looked like a strong 6'2 guy but not 6'4 or even 6'3.
In blood work which was only made in 2002 clint looked 188cm since then though he has been looking shorter than that
Editor Rob no, I have been meaning to rewatch his films for a while.
nick said on 24/Mar/14
Of course hes lost inches hes nearly 85 years old for crying out loud.
Of course hes lost inches hes nearly 85 years old for crying out loud.
the shredder said on 21/Mar/14
I find it to believe Danny Glover lost 2 inches. He is 6'1 but looked 6'3 peak. I actually am strating to think glover was 6'2.5 max.
I find it to believe Danny Glover lost 2 inches. He is 6'1 but looked 6'3 peak. I actually am strating to think glover was 6'2.5 max.
James B said on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
Editor Rob
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
Editor Rob I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....
Sam said on 21/Mar/14
Not all older men have a distinct hump along their back (I think Rob calls it a dowager's hump), but Eastwood does. Think of other tall guys like Sidney Poitier and Christopher Lee who maintained a relatively straight spine until they were in their 80s. Even with his obviously greater health problems, John Wayne maintained more height it seems than Clint has.
Not all older men have a distinct hump along their back (I think Rob calls it a dowager's hump), but Eastwood does. Think of other tall guys like Sidney Poitier and Christopher Lee who maintained a relatively straight spine until they were in their 80s. Even with his obviously greater health problems, John Wayne maintained more height it seems than Clint has.
Lillo thomas said on 20/Mar/14
I agree Clint losing nearly 4 inches from his peak is unbelievable. Most guys as his age are around 2 inches shorter max.
I agree Clint losing nearly 4 inches from his peak is unbelievable. Most guys as his age are around 2 inches shorter max.
littlesue said on 20/Mar/14
My Mom last 2 inches and she 77, my Nan and her 3 sisters all lived to 93 and lost between 6 to 8 inches
My Mom last 2 inches and she 77, my Nan and her 3 sisters all lived to 93 and lost between 6 to 8 inches
Realist said on 20/Mar/14
Rob can people really lose almost 4 inches in a life time that means a 5'8 guy would become 5'4.
Editor Rob
Rob can people really lose almost 4 inches in a life time that means a 5'8 guy would become 5'4.
Editor Rob the longer your spine the more potential for losing more. If you lost an inch by 70's that is pretty common for men, 2 inches would be more common for women, but once you get to 80-90 that's when you can lose a fair chunk.
James B said on 19/Mar/14
Orbach was probably 6'1 flat by that stage
Orbach was probably 6'1 flat by that stage
jervis said on 19/Mar/14
In escape from alcatraz there is a tall tin actor in many sceans with clint.I forget his name but I seen him listed as 6ft4 and clint looks as tall as him.If humprys was 5ft8 then clint was easly 6ft4 in at his peak.
In escape from alcatraz there is a tall tin actor in many sceans with clint.I forget his name but I seen him listed as 6ft4 and clint looks as tall as him.If humprys was 5ft8 then clint was easly 6ft4 in at his peak.
chucker said on 19/Mar/14
Jeff Bridges is not and never was 6'2. 6'1" max.
Jeff Bridges is not and never was 6'2. 6'1" max.
IosuLM said on 19/Mar/14
Click Here
Look this picture... Michael Moriarty is taller than jerry orbach (6 1.5)... In Pale Rider Clint is taller tan Michael... (2 cms)
Click Here
Look this picture... Michael Moriarty is taller than jerry orbach (6 1.5)... In Pale Rider Clint is taller tan Michael... (2 cms)
James B said on 19/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
I think clint looked 6'2 or 6'2.5 even back in escape from Alcatraz. Looked the same height range as Morgan freeman in that film. Granted I think he appears 6'3 in the any which way you can films.
Also I can't see clint looking any taller than 189cm in the line of fire.
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
I think clint looked 6'2 or 6'2.5 even back in escape from Alcatraz. Looked the same height range as Morgan freeman in that film. Granted I think he appears 6'3 in the any which way you can films.
Also I can't see clint looking any taller than 189cm in the line of fire.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Mar/14
John Humphreys? 5 ft 8. And yeah in that 1967 interview Eastwood looks easily 6'4".
John Humphreys? 5 ft 8. And yeah in that 1967 interview Eastwood looks easily 6'4".
jervis said on 18/Mar/14
Dose anybody no how tall john humprys the bbc news reader is,because there is an interview with him and clint on YouTube,and clint is so much taller than him he makes humprys look like a little boy.On the photo of clint and arnie both men look almost the same hight with clint slightly taller.But there is another photo of both men from the same peroid,both are holding a baby,and in that photo clint is clerarly 2inches taller than arnie.
Dose anybody no how tall john humprys the bbc news reader is,because there is an interview with him and clint on YouTube,and clint is so much taller than him he makes humprys look like a little boy.On the photo of clint and arnie both men look almost the same hight with clint slightly taller.But there is another photo of both men from the same peroid,both are holding a baby,and in that photo clint is clerarly 2inches taller than arnie.
James B said on 17/Mar/14
By 1995 arnie was probably no taller than 186cm. In this photo clint looks 6'1.5-6'2
Click Here
By 1995 arnie was probably no taller than 186cm. In this photo clint looks 6'1.5-6'2
Click Here
James B said on 17/Mar/14
Bridges might have been 186cm at peak?
Even though I thought clint looked 6'2 range in dead pool that might have just because he was much bulkier. in heartbreak ridge, in the line of fire and unforgiven, escape from alcatraz as well I thought he looked more 6'2 in those particular movies. I agree with arch though in the enforcer he looked 6'4 or 6'3 1/2.
He defo looked shorter in his movies from the 80s compared to his 70s movies. Thinning hairstlye, natural shrinking and being heavier could have had something to do with that?
Bridges might have been 186cm at peak?
Even though I thought clint looked 6'2 range in dead pool that might have just because he was much bulkier. in heartbreak ridge, in the line of fire and unforgiven, escape from alcatraz as well I thought he looked more 6'2 in those particular movies. I agree with arch though in the enforcer he looked 6'4 or 6'3 1/2.
He defo looked shorter in his movies from the 80s compared to his 70s movies. Thinning hairstlye, natural shrinking and being heavier could have had something to do with that?
Sam said on 17/Mar/14
This article claims "about 6'3"" as the height for both Eastwood and John Wayne:
Click Here
This article claims "about 6'3"" as the height for both Eastwood and John Wayne:
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 17/Mar/14
Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Bridges.
Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Bridges.
James B said on 16/Mar/14
In thunderbolt looked 6'3
In thunderbolt looked 6'3
James B said on 14/Mar/14
Sutherland often looked 6'2 1/2 range
Sutherland often looked 6'2 1/2 range
Arch Stanton said on 13/Mar/14
Goldblum looks 2cm taller than Sutherland to me.
Goldblum looks 2cm taller than Sutherland to me.
James B said on 11/Mar/14
Eastwood looked 6'3 range in a lot of his films
Eastwood looked 6'3 range in a lot of his films
IosuLM said on 11/Mar/14
Click Here
They look at jeef and Donald ... are similar in cutting height ... and clint was higher than donald!
Click Here
They look at jeef and Donald ... are similar in cutting height ... and clint was higher than donald!
Arch Stanton said on 9/Mar/14
So have I Jervis and him and Sutherland barely ever stand next to each other in the film but on the occasions where they're together Eastwood look ed a bit taller. Look at the chin level when they first meet. Aside from that anyway Eastwood LOOKED 6'4 in Kelly's Heroes as he did in most of his 60s and 70s films.
So have I Jervis and him and Sutherland barely ever stand next to each other in the film but on the occasions where they're together Eastwood look ed a bit taller. Look at the chin level when they first meet. Aside from that anyway Eastwood LOOKED 6'4 in Kelly's Heroes as he did in most of his 60s and 70s films.
jervis said on 8/Mar/14
I have seen kellys heros many times and to my eye clint and Sutherland look the same hight,even in photos from the movie i see no difference in hight between both men.But in space cowboys Sutherland looks taller by at lest 1inch showing clint had lost at least 1inch by the age of 70.
I have seen kellys heros many times and to my eye clint and Sutherland look the same hight,even in photos from the movie i see no difference in hight between both men.But in space cowboys Sutherland looks taller by at lest 1inch showing clint had lost at least 1inch by the age of 70.
jervis said on 8/Mar/14
I ment he looked shorter than 6ft3.5 because of slouching when he eas young.l think now he is around 6ft1 but never stands stright so tendes to look shorter.
I ment he looked shorter than 6ft3.5 because of slouching when he eas young.l think now he is around 6ft1 but never stands stright so tendes to look shorter.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Mar/14
He's lost a lot of height, not just slouching. He actually looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 70s.
He's lost a lot of height, not just slouching. He actually looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 70s.
jervis said on 8/Mar/14
Eastwood weak 6ft4 more like 6f t3.5 most of the day,but looks shorter now because of slouching.
Eastwood weak 6ft4 more like 6f t3.5 most of the day,but looks shorter now because of slouching.
arbuckle said on 2/Mar/14
I think Clint was inches taller when he first became famous than he is now.
He is at least 80 years old after all. 3-2-2014.
I think Clint was inches taller when he first became famous than he is now.
He is at least 80 years old after all. 3-2-2014.
Bruno said on 1/Mar/14
Presnell does look taller but then he is listed on other sites as 6'5''.
Presnell does look taller but then he is listed on other sites as 6'5''.
berta said on 28/Feb/14
Click Here about the same height as ali here. I think clint was 191 and measured 193 in the morning and then said he was that height and probably didnt thinkm utch about morning and evening height. He is listed the same height as goldblum but i think goldblum was almost 3 cm taller when both was in peak.
Click Here about the same height as ali here. I think clint was 191 and measured 193 in the morning and then said he was that height and probably didnt thinkm utch about morning and evening height. He is listed the same height as goldblum but i think goldblum was almost 3 cm taller when both was in peak.
Ronster said on 22/Feb/14
Thebad7, excellent post. Sadly not many on here are the least bit interseted in the truth lol.
Thebad7, excellent post. Sadly not many on here are the least bit interseted in the truth lol.
chucker said on 12/Feb/14
Okay Arch, For peak height I'll say 6'3" and POSSIBLY some change, barefoot, in the morning.
Okay Arch, For peak height I'll say 6'3" and POSSIBLY some change, barefoot, in the morning.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Feb/14
You can argue 6'3" range barefoot but I think it's obvious in the comparisons he wasn't under that.
You can argue 6'3" range barefoot but I think it's obvious in the comparisons he wasn't under that.
chucker said on 11/Feb/14
Hey lighten up Arch. No body said Clint was .5" to 1" taller than Van Cleef and Bridges. I believe if he was a legit 6' 4" he would tower over them. I always thought Bridges was only 6'1" anyway. Clint was taller than those actors but not by too much. I and many here believe Clint was not 6'4" but quite tall none the less. A legit 6 3" guy is tall and he would seem taller if he was lean like Eastwood.
Hey lighten up Arch. No body said Clint was .5" to 1" taller than Van Cleef and Bridges. I believe if he was a legit 6' 4" he would tower over them. I always thought Bridges was only 6'1" anyway. Clint was taller than those actors but not by too much. I and many here believe Clint was not 6'4" but quite tall none the less. A legit 6 3" guy is tall and he would seem taller if he was lean like Eastwood.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Feb/14
Yea Avim don't both answering the "he was 6'2.5" tops type of posters. Anybody who thinks he was only 0.5-1 inch taller at 6'2.5" next to guys like Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges really needs glasses!!
Yea Avim don't both answering the "he was 6'2.5" tops type of posters. Anybody who thinks he was only 0.5-1 inch taller at 6'2.5" next to guys like Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges really needs glasses!!
avi said on 8/Feb/14
@Mark says on 30/Jan/14
Aren't you the guy from the roger Moore page? If so you have no idea of height as you thought Lee was over 4 inches taller. Your judgement is skewed.
@Mark says on 30/Jan/14
Aren't you the guy from the roger Moore page? If so you have no idea of height as you thought Lee was over 4 inches taller. Your judgement is skewed.
chucker said on 8/Feb/14
I do not believe Clint was ever 6'4" I think 6'3" tops. Just the way I see it folks. He had the kind of lean build that made him look taller than he really was. Plus as a leading man directors used camera shots enhanced his height. He definitly did not tower over alot of actors who were in the 6'1 to 6'2" range like Lee Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges.
I do not believe Clint was ever 6'4" I think 6'3" tops. Just the way I see it folks. He had the kind of lean build that made him look taller than he really was. Plus as a leading man directors used camera shots enhanced his height. He definitly did not tower over alot of actors who were in the 6'1 to 6'2" range like Lee Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges.
rowdy yates 188cm said on 7/Feb/14
Clint's always looked like a 6'2"1/2 guy to me right back from the start. He was'nt 6'4" There are far to many pics from the 80's 90's to prove this. Beside he would stood at around 6'4" any way. There' s no way the guy lost nearly ten cm in height. He would still stand around 187/188cm today even at his age. Iknow a few 70 80 yr olds and are still 6'5 or 6'4" evev
Even at 80 the most shrinkage would be 4cm maximum.
Clint's always looked like a 6'2"1/2 guy to me right back from the start. He was'nt 6'4" There are far to many pics from the 80's 90's to prove this. Beside he would stood at around 6'4" any way. There' s no way the guy lost nearly ten cm in height. He would still stand around 187/188cm today even at his age. Iknow a few 70 80 yr olds and are still 6'5 or 6'4" evev
Even at 80 the most shrinkage would be 4cm maximum.
jervis said on 4/Feb/14
Just watched that show Presnell looks to have an inch on Clint,Ali an inch shorter than Clint,making 40 year old unshrunken Clint 6ft3 as I always taught he was.
Just watched that show Presnell looks to have an inch on Clint,Ali an inch shorter than Clint,making 40 year old unshrunken Clint 6ft3 as I always taught he was.
176,2Tunman said on 2/Feb/14
Looked very similar to 191-2 Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
Looked very similar to 191-2 Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
Tony G said on 31/Jan/14
@thebad7: Very good summary. Seems accurate to me.
@thebad7: Very good summary. Seems accurate to me.
thebad7 said on 31/Jan/14
@Arch: Glad you liked it. Again, I think 2004/2005 was the last time Eastwood was near 6'2", and even then, Freeman had a noticeable advantage over him in MDB.
As for THE GAUNTLET, yes--no 6'2" man towers people the way Eastwood does when he's walking through that concourse to the street. That's my OPINION--even if others don't like it.
@Mark: Likewise, ace--you aren't necessarily a good judge of height yourself--but you sure sound like that ultimate judge you're criticizing. I'm 6'3" myself--or, since you want to be so precise about things: first thing out of bed and barefoot, I'm 6'3 1/2"; I'm 6'3 1/4" most of the day and I stay there until bedtime. In short, if I'm asked my height, I tell people: 6'3". You're not the only one who's encountered "poor judges of height." Personally, I believe Urich was 6'2", and if you don't agree, so be it. Having said that, I'm aware this is an "opinion" site. I happened to be sick of reading things like 'Eastwood was 6'2" tops.' That kind of comment is flat out wrong. Now, for those out there--people like you--who believe he was 6'3"+, you'll notice I've never criticized them for having that OPINION--6'3" I can buy, even if I don't agree with it, but 6'2" I can't because if it was true he wouldn't look the same height as people like George Kennedy. If you believe he was 6'3", then fine. I'm simply pointing out that the man towered over people in his films when he was younger.
And I never claimed to be an ultimate judge of anything. Appreciate your condescending post, by the way.
tb7
@Arch: Glad you liked it. Again, I think 2004/2005 was the last time Eastwood was near 6'2", and even then, Freeman had a noticeable advantage over him in MDB.
As for THE GAUNTLET, yes--no 6'2" man towers people the way Eastwood does when he's walking through that concourse to the street. That's my OPINION--even if others don't like it.
@Mark: Likewise, ace--you aren't necessarily a good judge of height yourself--but you sure sound like that ultimate judge you're criticizing. I'm 6'3" myself--or, since you want to be so precise about things: first thing out of bed and barefoot, I'm 6'3 1/2"; I'm 6'3 1/4" most of the day and I stay there until bedtime. In short, if I'm asked my height, I tell people: 6'3". You're not the only one who's encountered "poor judges of height." Personally, I believe Urich was 6'2", and if you don't agree, so be it. Having said that, I'm aware this is an "opinion" site. I happened to be sick of reading things like 'Eastwood was 6'2" tops.' That kind of comment is flat out wrong. Now, for those out there--people like you--who believe he was 6'3"+, you'll notice I've never criticized them for having that OPINION--6'3" I can buy, even if I don't agree with it, but 6'2" I can't because if it was true he wouldn't look the same height as people like George Kennedy. If you believe he was 6'3", then fine. I'm simply pointing out that the man towered over people in his films when he was younger.
And I never claimed to be an ultimate judge of anything. Appreciate your condescending post, by the way.
tb7
Arch Stanton said on 31/Jan/14
@Mark, it's an educated opinion though having seen these actors in many films and noting how they looked together. It's not just a blind guess. And generally my guesses are the same or similar to Rob's and a number of other regulars here. We don't know that Ulrich was 188cm barefoot, but we can certainly take note of what he claimed or was listed at and more importantly how he looked. And he did look close to it.
@Mark, it's an educated opinion though having seen these actors in many films and noting how they looked together. It's not just a blind guess. And generally my guesses are the same or similar to Rob's and a number of other regulars here. We don't know that Ulrich was 188cm barefoot, but we can certainly take note of what he claimed or was listed at and more importantly how he looked. And he did look close to it.
Mark said on 30/Jan/14
May I remind almost everyone here that none of us have actually met these people we are talking about, and even if you have, you're not neccesarily a good judge of height. I'm 6'0 exactly. I have met many a guy who says he's also 6 feet, but he's taller or shorter. There is an absolute obsession on this site that it's a given that Robert Urich was 6'2. Other actor's heights are also used to judge Eastwood's. The bottom line is, this is an OPINION site. Every now and then I'll toss in an opinion on other actors, as well as Eastwood, and there's always some guy who mouths off like he's the ultimate judge (as just happened on another page). It's ridiculous. This is an "opinion" site.
May I remind almost everyone here that none of us have actually met these people we are talking about, and even if you have, you're not neccesarily a good judge of height. I'm 6'0 exactly. I have met many a guy who says he's also 6 feet, but he's taller or shorter. There is an absolute obsession on this site that it's a given that Robert Urich was 6'2. Other actor's heights are also used to judge Eastwood's. The bottom line is, this is an OPINION site. Every now and then I'll toss in an opinion on other actors, as well as Eastwood, and there's always some guy who mouths off like he's the ultimate judge (as just happened on another page). It's ridiculous. This is an "opinion" site.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Jan/14
I was about to groan when I saw the huge post but it's actually a superb post, very well constructed and I agree with most of what you say, except on Neeson being 6'5, he himself said a bit over 6'4", so 194 for him. Eastwood at the time was about an inch shorter though as you say but had already begun losing height. And Walcott did look taller I thought but not much in it and in Mystic River production/premiere photos from 2003 before 2004-5 it's very tough to see 6'2" for Eastwood next to Robbins and him 6'2 next to Freeman in Million Dollar in 2004 but he could still look near 6'2" in some early 2000s photos agreed. And I consider The Gauntlet to be one of Eastwood's most enjoyable and underrated films too!! It's funny you say watch Eastwood walk in The Gauntlet I said EXACTLY the same thing a few months back. I said anybody who doubts 6'4" just watch him walk in The Gauntlet! It's obvious...
I was about to groan when I saw the huge post but it's actually a superb post, very well constructed and I agree with most of what you say, except on Neeson being 6'5, he himself said a bit over 6'4", so 194 for him. Eastwood at the time was about an inch shorter though as you say but had already begun losing height. And Walcott did look taller I thought but not much in it and in Mystic River production/premiere photos from 2003 before 2004-5 it's very tough to see 6'2" for Eastwood next to Robbins and him 6'2 next to Freeman in Million Dollar in 2004 but he could still look near 6'2" in some early 2000s photos agreed. And I consider The Gauntlet to be one of Eastwood's most enjoyable and underrated films too!! It's funny you say watch Eastwood walk in The Gauntlet I said EXACTLY the same thing a few months back. I said anybody who doubts 6'4" just watch him walk in The Gauntlet! It's obvious...
thebad7 said on 29/Jan/14
Every now and again, you'll see these ridiculous posts stating Eastwood was only ever 6'2" in his prime. Get real. The man was 6'4" at his peak; he always stacks up this way against tall actors and there's simply too much photographic evidence out there supporting this figure.
1965 - 1966: Second & third DOLLARS films. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Van Cleef. Both men wearing cowboy boots with similar heels.
1973: MAGNUM FORCE. Clint has 2" on 6'2" actors Tim Matheson and Robert Urich--and this is with loose posture and a footwear disadvantage (Clint in flat-soled running sneakers, and Matheson, Urich, Niven, & Soul wearing knee high Red Wing motorcycle boots with about a 1" heel). Standing side-by-side with Soul during the Charlie McCoy sendoff, Clint has almost 3" on weak 6'1" David Soul.
1974: THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. Clint has 2" and a bit of change on strong 6'1"/weak 6'2" Jeff Bridges. Standing face-to-face with 6'4" George Kennedy, Clint is the same height--and both actors are wearing similar style dress shoes.
1975: THE EIGER SANCTION. Face-to-face with strong 6'4" Gregory Walcott ("Pope"), Clint is the same height--with maybe a fraction of advantage going to Walcott. Walcott was a big, burly guy with high, powerful shoulders that sometimes made him appear even taller than what he was.
1977: THE GAUNTLET (Clint's most underrated and misunderstood film as an actor & director). In the opening scene, following the panoramic of the rising sun and the Phoenix, AZ skyline, you see Clint walking out of a bar and across Third Street to his Chevy Impala. Just look at the guy's legs. That's no 6'2" man--that's a 6'4" man. Likewise, in an early scene--when Clint is walking from the Vegas airport terminal to street level in his blue sports coat and Foster Grant gradient aviators, the man towers over bystanders the way a legitimate 6'4" man would.
1980: ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN. Face-to-face with strong 6'2" William "Big Bill" Smith, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Big Bill during the Palomino bar fight when they formally meet, and then later following the big scrap in Jackson Hole, WY.
1988: THE DEAD POOL. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" Liam Neeson, Clint looks about 1" shorter. Bare minimum 6'3 1/2" for him at this stage, and it wasn't until around 1992 that the height loss became noticeable.
As late as 2004 - 2005, Clint still looked to be around the 6'2" mark, but not anymore. Today, I would guess him to be a flat 6'1" first thing in the morning, and a weak 6' by bedtime. Despite his advanced age and possible health problems (scoliosis perhaps, for example), make no mistake: the guy towered over people when he was younger, and he always stacked up well against tall men.
One final note: there is a photograph available online of a Career Achievement Dinner for John Wayne that occurred around 1969. In the photo, the Duke is standing before a giant cake, slicing into it with relish. Duke is surrounded by the major male stars of the day--Clint, Rock Hudson, Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, and Fred MacMurray. Standing next to 6'5" Rock Hudson--and both men have poor posture because they're looking down at Duke cutting the cake, Clint only looks about 1" shorter than the Rock--and I believe that Rock had a bit of change for his 6'5".
6'2" peak for Clint? No. Furthermore, not everyone in Hollywood lies about their height. Clint was tall enough--he had no reason to lie about that.
tb7
Every now and again, you'll see these ridiculous posts stating Eastwood was only ever 6'2" in his prime. Get real. The man was 6'4" at his peak; he always stacks up this way against tall actors and there's simply too much photographic evidence out there supporting this figure.
1965 - 1966: Second & third DOLLARS films. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Van Cleef. Both men wearing cowboy boots with similar heels.
1973: MAGNUM FORCE. Clint has 2" on 6'2" actors Tim Matheson and Robert Urich--and this is with loose posture and a footwear disadvantage (Clint in flat-soled running sneakers, and Matheson, Urich, Niven, & Soul wearing knee high Red Wing motorcycle boots with about a 1" heel). Standing side-by-side with Soul during the Charlie McCoy sendoff, Clint has almost 3" on weak 6'1" David Soul.
1974: THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. Clint has 2" and a bit of change on strong 6'1"/weak 6'2" Jeff Bridges. Standing face-to-face with 6'4" George Kennedy, Clint is the same height--and both actors are wearing similar style dress shoes.
1975: THE EIGER SANCTION. Face-to-face with strong 6'4" Gregory Walcott ("Pope"), Clint is the same height--with maybe a fraction of advantage going to Walcott. Walcott was a big, burly guy with high, powerful shoulders that sometimes made him appear even taller than what he was.
1977: THE GAUNTLET (Clint's most underrated and misunderstood film as an actor & director). In the opening scene, following the panoramic of the rising sun and the Phoenix, AZ skyline, you see Clint walking out of a bar and across Third Street to his Chevy Impala. Just look at the guy's legs. That's no 6'2" man--that's a 6'4" man. Likewise, in an early scene--when Clint is walking from the Vegas airport terminal to street level in his blue sports coat and Foster Grant gradient aviators, the man towers over bystanders the way a legitimate 6'4" man would.
1980: ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN. Face-to-face with strong 6'2" William "Big Bill" Smith, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Big Bill during the Palomino bar fight when they formally meet, and then later following the big scrap in Jackson Hole, WY.
1988: THE DEAD POOL. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" Liam Neeson, Clint looks about 1" shorter. Bare minimum 6'3 1/2" for him at this stage, and it wasn't until around 1992 that the height loss became noticeable.
As late as 2004 - 2005, Clint still looked to be around the 6'2" mark, but not anymore. Today, I would guess him to be a flat 6'1" first thing in the morning, and a weak 6' by bedtime. Despite his advanced age and possible health problems (scoliosis perhaps, for example), make no mistake: the guy towered over people when he was younger, and he always stacked up well against tall men.
One final note: there is a photograph available online of a Career Achievement Dinner for John Wayne that occurred around 1969. In the photo, the Duke is standing before a giant cake, slicing into it with relish. Duke is surrounded by the major male stars of the day--Clint, Rock Hudson, Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, and Fred MacMurray. Standing next to 6'5" Rock Hudson--and both men have poor posture because they're looking down at Duke cutting the cake, Clint only looks about 1" shorter than the Rock--and I believe that Rock had a bit of change for his 6'5".
6'2" peak for Clint? No. Furthermore, not everyone in Hollywood lies about their height. Clint was tall enough--he had no reason to lie about that.
tb7
Bruno said on 28/Jan/14
Looked at In the line of fire (1993), Eastwood stands face to face with Brian Libby, Libby is listed as 6'4'' and he looks to be .5'' taller than Clint.
Late on he is in a scene with Fred Dalton Thompson(6'5'') and they never stand face to face so its hard to judge but Thompson looks about 1.5 - 2 '' taller.
Both men are quite a bit younger than Clint, so I'd put his peak height at 6'4''
and around 6'3.5'' in 1993.
Looked at In the line of fire (1993), Eastwood stands face to face with Brian Libby, Libby is listed as 6'4'' and he looks to be .5'' taller than Clint.
Late on he is in a scene with Fred Dalton Thompson(6'5'') and they never stand face to face so its hard to judge but Thompson looks about 1.5 - 2 '' taller.
Both men are quite a bit younger than Clint, so I'd put his peak height at 6'4''
and around 6'3.5'' in 1993.
Ali said on 26/Jan/14
Clint Eastwood looks 6ft tops these days. I don't see him standing 6'1
at all. He definitely has lost at least 2 inches height. He was at least
6'2 in his prime. I think 6'3 peak might be possible for him.
Clint Eastwood looks 6ft tops these days. I don't see him standing 6'1
at all. He definitely has lost at least 2 inches height. He was at least
6'2 in his prime. I think 6'3 peak might be possible for him.
avi said on 26/Jan/14
always a 6'3 range when younger.
always a 6'3 range when younger.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jan/14
I actually think Eastwood could have measured 194 out of bed at peak.
I actually think Eastwood could have measured 194 out of bed at peak.
Mark said on 20/Jan/14
Perhaps it's all designed to keep our egos in check (although I don't think Sean Connery has shrunk much, nor has my 6'2, 78 year old uncle...if at all). But it is startling to see that this guy, Eastwood, so towering in earlier films (though I still say 6'3 plus, not 6'4), has shrunk so much, clearly.
Perhaps it's all designed to keep our egos in check (although I don't think Sean Connery has shrunk much, nor has my 6'2, 78 year old uncle...if at all). But it is startling to see that this guy, Eastwood, so towering in earlier films (though I still say 6'3 plus, not 6'4), has shrunk so much, clearly.
James B said on 20/Jan/14
In unforgiven I think clint eastwood stood 189-190cm.
In his prime probably was 6'3 1/2
In unforgiven I think clint eastwood stood 189-190cm.
In his prime probably was 6'3 1/2
thebad7 said on 20/Jan/14
There's no doubting it: he's no longer 6'4" and he hasn't seen that height since the late 80s/early 90s. Although he's serious about fitness and he's always taken good care of himself, time catches everyone. Every once in awhile, someone will bring up the hump he has where his neck and shoulders connect to his back. Even as a younger man--I'm thinking specifically of 1968's COOGAN'S BLUFF and both 1971's THE BEGUILED and PLAY MISTY FOR ME----he had that hump that would crane his head and neck downwards. He tended towards a looser posture, but when he stood ramrod straight, there was no doubting he was a tall man. I suspect this hump is part of the reason why he's lost so much height from his youth. If you look at his legs in the 60s DOLLARS films, they are ungodly long--he has the legs of a 6'6" - 6'7" man. Even today in some photos, you can still see it: he still has those long legs. The height he's lost is from his torso.
His listings:
Early 50/late 80s: 6'4".
1992 (UNFORGIVEN): 6'3". Still noticeably taller than Hackman and Freeman.
2002 (BLOOD WORK): weak 6'3"/strong 6'2". A hair taller than strong 6'2" Jeff Daniels.
2004 (MILLION DOLLAR BABY): 6'2". About even with Morgan Freeman--Freeman just a hair taller.
2008 (GRAN TORINO): weak 6'2"/strong 6'1". 2" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch (Martin the Barber).
2012 (TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE): weak 6'1/strong 6'.
If you look at recent photos of him with Justin Timberlake and Leo DiCaprio, he only looks about an inch and perhaps a tiny bit of change taller than them--and both of them I believe to be under 6' (strong 5'10"/weak 5'11"). In the old days, had Timberlake and DiCaprio been around a young and in his prime Eastwood, he'd easily tower over both of them.
Rob, both your current and peak listings for Clint are spot on.
tb7
There's no doubting it: he's no longer 6'4" and he hasn't seen that height since the late 80s/early 90s. Although he's serious about fitness and he's always taken good care of himself, time catches everyone. Every once in awhile, someone will bring up the hump he has where his neck and shoulders connect to his back. Even as a younger man--I'm thinking specifically of 1968's COOGAN'S BLUFF and both 1971's THE BEGUILED and PLAY MISTY FOR ME----he had that hump that would crane his head and neck downwards. He tended towards a looser posture, but when he stood ramrod straight, there was no doubting he was a tall man. I suspect this hump is part of the reason why he's lost so much height from his youth. If you look at his legs in the 60s DOLLARS films, they are ungodly long--he has the legs of a 6'6" - 6'7" man. Even today in some photos, you can still see it: he still has those long legs. The height he's lost is from his torso.
His listings:
Early 50/late 80s: 6'4".
1992 (UNFORGIVEN): 6'3". Still noticeably taller than Hackman and Freeman.
2002 (BLOOD WORK): weak 6'3"/strong 6'2". A hair taller than strong 6'2" Jeff Daniels.
2004 (MILLION DOLLAR BABY): 6'2". About even with Morgan Freeman--Freeman just a hair taller.
2008 (GRAN TORINO): weak 6'2"/strong 6'1". 2" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch (Martin the Barber).
2012 (TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE): weak 6'1/strong 6'.
If you look at recent photos of him with Justin Timberlake and Leo DiCaprio, he only looks about an inch and perhaps a tiny bit of change taller than them--and both of them I believe to be under 6' (strong 5'10"/weak 5'11"). In the old days, had Timberlake and DiCaprio been around a young and in his prime Eastwood, he'd easily tower over both of them.
Rob, both your current and peak listings for Clint are spot on.
tb7
MOF said on 18/Jan/14
I met him and worked with him on a scene in Flags of our Fathers and he appeared 6'1" tops. I was surprised because he was always said to be this extremely tall guy. He must've lost some height but he was 184-185cm in 2005, no question.
Current listing is dead on. But I'm not sure that he ever was 6'4", even in his prime.
I met him and worked with him on a scene in Flags of our Fathers and he appeared 6'1" tops. I was surprised because he was always said to be this extremely tall guy. He must've lost some height but he was 184-185cm in 2005, no question.
Current listing is dead on. But I'm not sure that he ever was 6'4", even in his prime.
James said on 31/Dec/13
filmfan says on 31/Dec/13
I think the site has got it right. 6'4'' significant height loss about 6ft or thereabouts today. If you see recent clips of Clint his legs look really long compared to body, like he has lost height in torso. In films with big guys like George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland Clint looks similar in height. Perhaps you could say he was half an inch shorter or half an inch taller than either but close enough so little difference could be seen. The only thing that causes me to doubt this is the publicity shots for Mystic River where 6'5'' Tim Robbins appears to tower over Clint. Serious height loss maybe.
In eiger sanction Kennedy looked noticeably taller than clint in one scene. Maybe clint by that stage had lost a bit of height but then Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken by the time of that movie so he may have lost a but of height too?
filmfan says on 31/Dec/13
I think the site has got it right. 6'4'' significant height loss about 6ft or thereabouts today. If you see recent clips of Clint his legs look really long compared to body, like he has lost height in torso. In films with big guys like George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland Clint looks similar in height. Perhaps you could say he was half an inch shorter or half an inch taller than either but close enough so little difference could be seen. The only thing that causes me to doubt this is the publicity shots for Mystic River where 6'5'' Tim Robbins appears to tower over Clint. Serious height loss maybe.
In eiger sanction Kennedy looked noticeably taller than clint in one scene. Maybe clint by that stage had lost a bit of height but then Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken by the time of that movie so he may have lost a but of height too?
Tony D said on 30/Dec/13
"Arch Stanton says on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie."
Arch, we are in agreement, in that movie (i've watched the whole thing) Eastwood looked at least as tall as Sutherland. Maybe you misread what i wrote.
"Arch Stanton says on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie."
Arch, we are in agreement, in that movie (i've watched the whole thing) Eastwood looked at least as tall as Sutherland. Maybe you misread what i wrote.
James said on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Unlike in Dirty Harry magnum force was one of the movies where 6'4 looked believable. In dead pool I thought clint looked in the 6'2 range but looking and 'being' a certain height are 2 different things.
Arch unless we measure him we don't know for sure either if neeson was over 193cm peak. Don't forget there was one time when rob had Liam at 192cm.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Unlike in Dirty Harry magnum force was one of the movies where 6'4 looked believable. In dead pool I thought clint looked in the 6'2 range but looking and 'being' a certain height are 2 different things.
Arch unless we measure him we don't know for sure either if neeson was over 193cm peak. Don't forget there was one time when rob had Liam at 192cm.
James said on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Except that he had 2 inch cowboy boots on, had a 2 inch hairstyle and wore a cowboy hat as well. If he was a legit 6'4 barefoot he should have looked 6'7 or 6'8 in that film taking all factors into account. Yet the most he looked to me in that film was maybe 6'5.
Still would not argue against him being near the 6'4 mark at his peak. Although perhaps 193cm would have been his height at lunchtime.
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Except that he had 2 inch cowboy boots on, had a 2 inch hairstyle and wore a cowboy hat as well. If he was a legit 6'4 barefoot he should have looked 6'7 or 6'8 in that film taking all factors into account. Yet the most he looked to me in that film was maybe 6'5.
Still would not argue against him being near the 6'4 mark at his peak. Although perhaps 193cm would have been his height at lunchtime.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/13
A Perfect World was 1993, he started to look 189-90 around that time in the mid 1990s if you seem him with Arnie.
A Perfect World was 1993, he started to look 189-90 around that time in the mid 1990s if you seem him with Arnie.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/13
You'd guess him more at 180-90 pounds back in the 60s I agree.
You'd guess him more at 180-90 pounds back in the 60s I agree.
Goose said on 29/Dec/13
My friend met him at his golf course/hotel and while my friend in about 5'10 he remarked Eastwood wasn't noticeably tall. I realize that's vague but it implies to me he probably under 6'2 at this point.
My friend met him at his golf course/hotel and while my friend in about 5'10 he remarked Eastwood wasn't noticeably tall. I realize that's vague but it implies to me he probably under 6'2 at this point.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie.
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie.
James said on 27/Dec/13
I think he was no taller than 191cm in heartbreak ridge
I think he was no taller than 191cm in heartbreak ridge
Tony D said on 27/Dec/13
In Kelly's Heroes (1970) he doesn't look shorter than Sutherland youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY
Rob, what do you think?
In Kelly's Heroes (1970) he doesn't look shorter than Sutherland youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY
Rob, what do you think?
berta said on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
Mark said on 26/Dec/13
If he really was a solid 6'4 in Coogans' Bluff, then we are talking about a guy, with cowboy boots, who was walking through that movie at six foot six inches, not counting puffy hair and a cowboy hat. I just don't buy it. I still say he was scraping 6'4 out of bed, on a good early day and at his most peakish moment (whatever that is), but more likely a bit over 6'3. A guy who was 6'4 with 2 inch healls ..especially in the 1960's, would not just be taller than alot of people, he would dwarf them. Eastwood was the former, not the latter.
If he really was a solid 6'4 in Coogans' Bluff, then we are talking about a guy, with cowboy boots, who was walking through that movie at six foot six inches, not counting puffy hair and a cowboy hat. I just don't buy it. I still say he was scraping 6'4 out of bed, on a good early day and at his most peakish moment (whatever that is), but more likely a bit over 6'3. A guy who was 6'4 with 2 inch healls ..especially in the 1960's, would not just be taller than alot of people, he would dwarf them. Eastwood was the former, not the latter.
James said on 26/Dec/13
Funny arch clint eastwood weighed 14 stone 3 in the 1960s. For 6'3.5-6'4 that is defo on the heavy side yet he always looked very slim. Maybe his very tall frame made him look slimmer perhaps?
By the time of dead pool he looked heavier since he worked out more and must have weighed 15 stone 6 by that stage. For 6'3 that is overweight yet still he did not look fat........
Funny arch clint eastwood weighed 14 stone 3 in the 1960s. For 6'3.5-6'4 that is defo on the heavy side yet he always looked very slim. Maybe his very tall frame made him look slimmer perhaps?
By the time of dead pool he looked heavier since he worked out more and must have weighed 15 stone 6 by that stage. For 6'3 that is overweight yet still he did not look fat........
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/13
I think today he would acknowledge that he's shrunk a lot but when he said 6'4" back in 2003 I think he probably genuinely thought he was still that height and probably hadn't been measured in ages. You'd have expected him to realize though having shot Mystic River and standing next to Tim Robbins that he was no longer anywhere near it!!...
I think today he would acknowledge that he's shrunk a lot but when he said 6'4" back in 2003 I think he probably genuinely thought he was still that height and probably hadn't been measured in ages. You'd have expected him to realize though having shot Mystic River and standing next to Tim Robbins that he was no longer anywhere near it!!...
Tony G said on 25/Dec/13
Clint seemed about 3 inches taller than 6'1" David Soul in "Magnum Force."
Click Here
Clint seemed about 3 inches taller than 6'1" David Soul in "Magnum Force."
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 23/Dec/13
Rob, 2003 isn't really "recently". I'm guessing that line has been up here since 2004!
Editor Rob
Rob, 2003 isn't really "recently". I'm guessing that line has been up here since 2004!
Editor Rob not been updated since forever, although I will do it now :)
Arch Stanton said on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
johnmcc said on 21/Dec/13
He was taller than 6'2 Van Cleef in the spaghetti westerns so your estimate of 6'1 range is ridiculous.
He was taller than 6'2 Van Cleef in the spaghetti westerns so your estimate of 6'1 range is ridiculous.
Sam said on 20/Dec/13
6'1.5" at peak in his socks??? I want some of what you're smoking.
6'1.5" at peak in his socks??? I want some of what you're smoking.
rowdy yatea said on 20/Dec/13
Clint was 6feet 1 1/2 inches tall in his socks. That's the reality. the evidence is clearly there through each decade. He stands around the 1.83m mark nowadays. 3in dowagers hump/bad back what the frack!!!!?????? Every other actor he worked with was under 5'10" mostly.
Clint was 6feet 1 1/2 inches tall in his socks. That's the reality. the evidence is clearly there through each decade. He stands around the 1.83m mark nowadays. 3in dowagers hump/bad back what the frack!!!!?????? Every other actor he worked with was under 5'10" mostly.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/13
Solid 6ft0.5/184cm now if not a weak 6ft1. I have a hard time believing he lost more than 3in. Chances are, IMO he wasn't quite 6ft4 except for as James pointed out, in the morning.
Solid 6ft0.5/184cm now if not a weak 6ft1. I have a hard time believing he lost more than 3in. Chances are, IMO he wasn't quite 6ft4 except for as James pointed out, in the morning.
ian c. said on 11/Dec/13
I'm going to go along with Eastwood at six foot four when young, but he had an inch and a half of hair and a head the size of a packing crate. By which I mean, other parts of him, like maybe his torso, are shorter than you might expect on a man that tall.
I'm going to go along with Eastwood at six foot four when young, but he had an inch and a half of hair and a head the size of a packing crate. By which I mean, other parts of him, like maybe his torso, are shorter than you might expect on a man that tall.
James said on 9/Dec/13
I think he would have measured 6'3.5 at night in the 60's/70s, 6'3.75 afternoon and 6'4 in the morning and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 out of bed.
Weak 6'4 guy at his peak
I think he would have measured 6'3.5 at night in the 60's/70s, 6'3.75 afternoon and 6'4 in the morning and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 out of bed.
Weak 6'4 guy at his peak
Jamie said on 5/Dec/13
Peak height: 6ft 4 (193 cm)
Current height: 6ft 0.5 (184 cm)
What is it with you people on here always labelling celebs smaller than their actual height.
Peak height: 6ft 4 (193 cm)
Current height: 6ft 0.5 (184 cm)
What is it with you people on here always labelling celebs smaller than their actual height.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Nov/13
Yeah MD, 5'10.5-5'11" seems a good shout for Scott. Kyle looks near Clint's peak height I think but he can look shorter a lot.
Yeah MD, 5'10.5-5'11" seems a good shout for Scott. Kyle looks near Clint's peak height I think but he can look shorter a lot.
MD said on 20/Nov/13
Arch, I think Scott is just under 5'11". There are some pics with him an Erin Heatherton, listed her as being 5'10.5". She's in some heeled boots, but not ridiculously heeled, and he's in regular gym shoes. It looks like if she was in flats, she's be as tall as him. I'm guessing him 5'10.5" to 5'10.75".
Arch, I think Scott is just under 5'11". There are some pics with him an Erin Heatherton, listed her as being 5'10.5". She's in some heeled boots, but not ridiculously heeled, and he's in regular gym shoes. It looks like if she was in flats, she's be as tall as him. I'm guessing him 5'10.5" to 5'10.75".
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/13
See you can see when he's stood straight Click Here that Kyle Eastwood looks near 6'4" as he claims. He's a bit nearer the camera than Pitt who probably has footwear advantage and Jolie is about 5'10" in heels.
See you can see when he's stood straight Click Here that Kyle Eastwood looks near 6'4" as he claims. He's a bit nearer the camera than Pitt who probably has footwear advantage and Jolie is about 5'10" in heels.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/13
See at times Kyle can look 6'4" Click Here and then look even a questionable 6'2" !! Click Here although you can see he's slumped posture. I think it has to do with posture. He really looks towering on stage. I doubt he's measure under 6'3" if stood straight.
See at times Kyle can look 6'4" Click Here and then look even a questionable 6'2" !! Click Here although you can see he's slumped posture. I think it has to do with posture. He really looks towering on stage. I doubt he's measure under 6'3" if stood straight.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/13
I've seen photographs of his parents and neither of them look very tall and he doesn't look like them at all. Father possibly 6ft, mother maybe 5'5". I think he was just one of those anomalies, although he could have always had a very tall grandfather. Kyle Eastwood I think is actually near 6'4" but he can look more 6'2" range in a lot of photos. I've seen him on stage and he really does look near 6'4". Scott Eastwood on the other hand I'd say more 5'11, probably had an average-short mother.
I've seen photographs of his parents and neither of them look very tall and he doesn't look like them at all. Father possibly 6ft, mother maybe 5'5". I think he was just one of those anomalies, although he could have always had a very tall grandfather. Kyle Eastwood I think is actually near 6'4" but he can look more 6'2" range in a lot of photos. I've seen him on stage and he really does look near 6'4". Scott Eastwood on the other hand I'd say more 5'11, probably had an average-short mother.
jervis said on 3/Nov/13
In Bruce Almighty Carrey and Freeman looked almost the same hight,Freeman maybe half an inch taller than Carrey.So Ali your saying Cage is 5ft9 and since Connery was about 2 inches taller than him in the Rock,that Connery was only 5ft11,I dont think so.
In Bruce Almighty Carrey and Freeman looked almost the same hight,Freeman maybe half an inch taller than Carrey.So Ali your saying Cage is 5ft9 and since Connery was about 2 inches taller than him in the Rock,that Connery was only 5ft11,I dont think so.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Nov/13
So based on your rule of thumb Ali Chuck Connors was 6'3.5, Christopher Lee 6'2", Gary Copper 6' (claimed 6'2), Vincent Price 6'2, Sean Connery 5'11.5", Rock Hudson 6'1.5" etc.
So based on your rule of thumb Ali Chuck Connors was 6'3.5, Christopher Lee 6'2", Gary Copper 6' (claimed 6'2), Vincent Price 6'2, Sean Connery 5'11.5", Rock Hudson 6'1.5" etc.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Nov/13
Ali, Freeman was barely taller than Carey in Bruce Almighty. An inch at the very most.
Ali, Freeman was barely taller than Carey in Bruce Almighty. An inch at the very most.
Ali said on 1/Nov/13
Arch what are you talking about? Morgan Freeman is not slightly taller
than Carrey. Freeman is about 6'1.5 Has 2 inches or more on Carrey.
Federer at 6'1 was clearly taller than Will Smith. So smith is about 6'0. Smith was taller than Hackman. Ive seen the movie many times.
Hollywood actors add 2 inches to their height. This is common knowledge.
Clint was no 6'4. Maybe 6'3. Personally I think 189cm. Great height. In hollywood
at that height you are a giant. Actors are short in general .
Arch what are you talking about? Morgan Freeman is not slightly taller
than Carrey. Freeman is about 6'1.5 Has 2 inches or more on Carrey.
Federer at 6'1 was clearly taller than Will Smith. So smith is about 6'0. Smith was taller than Hackman. Ive seen the movie many times.
Hollywood actors add 2 inches to their height. This is common knowledge.
Clint was no 6'4. Maybe 6'3. Personally I think 189cm. Great height. In hollywood
at that height you are a giant. Actors are short in general .
jervis said on 1/Nov/13
There is a photo of Tim Robbins,Forest Whitker and Clint together in witch Whitker is a bit taller than Clint,Whitkers eye level is just above clints.But on the same page a photo of clint with Whitker taken about 25 years ago Whitkers eye level is just under Clints nose.If you put the younger clint with the old he would only about 1 inch off Robbins
There is a photo of Tim Robbins,Forest Whitker and Clint together in witch Whitker is a bit taller than Clint,Whitkers eye level is just above clints.But on the same page a photo of clint with Whitker taken about 25 years ago Whitkers eye level is just under Clints nose.If you put the younger clint with the old he would only about 1 inch off Robbins
Arch Stanton said on 31/Oct/13
LOL if Jim Carrey is 5'11" Morgan Freeman is struggling with a flat 6'!!
LOL if Jim Carrey is 5'11" Morgan Freeman is struggling with a flat 6'!!
zapes said on 31/Oct/13
Clint was every bit of 6'4" when I met him at his tavern in Carmel, and I'm more than 6'5". He was in his 50's then and he stood a ramrod straight 1" shorter than me. Hell of a good guy, too.
Clint was every bit of 6'4" when I met him at his tavern in Carmel, and I'm more than 6'5". He was in his 50's then and he stood a ramrod straight 1" shorter than me. Hell of a good guy, too.
Sam said on 30/Oct/13
Ali, Hackman and Smith look almost the same exact height and Hackman was near 70 at that point...
Click Here
Click Here
and wheres the evidence of Carrey being 5'11" or even 5'11.5"? Here's Carrey clearly at least an inch taller than Nicholas Cage and not much more than an inch shorter than Jeff Daniels.
Click Here
Click Here
Ali, Hackman and Smith look almost the same exact height and Hackman was near 70 at that point...
Click Here
Click Here
and wheres the evidence of Carrey being 5'11" or even 5'11.5"? Here's Carrey clearly at least an inch taller than Nicholas Cage and not much more than an inch shorter than Jeff Daniels.
Click Here
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".
Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".
Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
Mark said on 29/Oct/13
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.