Add a Comment5726 comments
Average Guess (475 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Arch Stanton said on 29/Nov/14
Robbins had about 3 inches on Morgan Freeman. Granted Freeman can often look 6'2.5-6'3" in some comparisons in films but I think 6'5" range like Cleese peak. I know it's easy to assume both were 6'6" but I think it's a bit of a stretch for Robbins.
Robbins had about 3 inches on Morgan Freeman. Granted Freeman can often look 6'2.5-6'3" in some comparisons in films but I think 6'5" range like Cleese peak. I know it's easy to assume both were 6'6" but I think it's a bit of a stretch for Robbins.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Nov/14
Danimal, You've been spending the last decade of your life on this site so if anyone has an unnatural obsession, it's you and if you respond to this it just means I'm right :)
Arch, I'll admit maybe I do comment more on the 6ft+ but that's only because I'm in that range myself (6ft3½) and naturally it's easier.
Danimal, You've been spending the last decade of your life on this site so if anyone has an unnatural obsession, it's you and if you respond to this it just means I'm right :)
Arch, I'll admit maybe I do comment more on the 6ft+ but that's only because I'm in that range myself (6ft3½) and naturally it's easier.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Nov/14
A 6'2.5 prime Eastwood would put Donald Sutherland at 6'2" flat and David Soul at 5 ft 11. Sutherland looked 2 inches taller than Connery in The Great Train Robbery, are you telling me Connery was only 6ft?
A 6'2.5 prime Eastwood would put Donald Sutherland at 6'2" flat and David Soul at 5 ft 11. Sutherland looked 2 inches taller than Connery in The Great Train Robbery, are you telling me Connery was only 6ft?
James B said on 28/Nov/14
These days robbins is looking 6'4 more than 6'6
These days robbins is looking 6'4 more than 6'6
Arch Stanton said on 28/Nov/14
Rampage does like commenting on 6'2-6'3 especially, he does seem to have a thing for 189cm in particular, but in fairness he also comments on the heights of a big range of people, even shortish or average.
Rampage does like commenting on 6'2-6'3 especially, he does seem to have a thing for 189cm in particular, but in fairness he also comments on the heights of a big range of people, even shortish or average.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Nov/14
Looks 6'2.5 in The Rookie.
Looks 6'2.5 in The Rookie.
Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
James B says on 19/Sep/14
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?
[Editor Rob: it's hard to believe that one.]
Why is it hard to believe Rob? He towered over Morgan Freeman in 1994 and had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien a few years ago. It's not unheard of very tall actors shaving 1-2" off their heights so that they can get more roles in Hollywood?
Editor Rob
James B says on 19/Sep/14
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?
[Editor Rob: it's hard to believe that one.]
Why is it hard to believe Rob? He towered over Morgan Freeman in 1994 and had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien a few years ago. It's not unheard of very tall actors shaving 1-2" off their heights so that they can get more roles in Hollywood?
Editor Rob I'm just not convinced he looked as tall as 6ft 6, although at times with some angles he could look probably taller than he measures.
Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 26/Oct/14
Eastwood's height loss is real bad. My uncle whose around the same age was 6ft5 peak and is still at least 6ft4 today. Almost like the polar opposite of this dude. No serious injuries, been married to the same woman for 40+ years (a statuesque 5ft11) and generally has a positive outlook on life.
You really like tall people, don't you? You seem to have an unnatural obsession with them.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 26/Oct/14
Eastwood's height loss is real bad. My uncle whose around the same age was 6ft5 peak and is still at least 6ft4 today. Almost like the polar opposite of this dude. No serious injuries, been married to the same woman for 40+ years (a statuesque 5ft11) and generally has a positive outlook on life.
You really like tall people, don't you? You seem to have an unnatural obsession with them.
Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
1.89m says on 21/Nov/14
I never see 6-4" peak imo. 6-3.5" max peak if that. 6-3" imo.
So your eyes are able to tell the difference between 6'3.5" and 6'4"? Wow, what's your secret?
1.89m says on 21/Nov/14
I never see 6-4" peak imo. 6-3.5" max peak if that. 6-3" imo.
So your eyes are able to tell the difference between 6'3.5" and 6'4"? Wow, what's your secret?
Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
filmfan says on 25/Nov/14
Clint's height loss seems unusual. Most guys lose an inch I understand, Clint appears to have lost several. The photo of him being towered by Tim Robbins is hard to reconcile with him being a 6''4'' guy.
Most guys lose more than 1" by 84. In fact, the average man loses 1.2" by 70, and 2" by 80. Clint is in his mid 80's and has severe scoliosis.
filmfan says on 25/Nov/14
Clint's height loss seems unusual. Most guys lose an inch I understand, Clint appears to have lost several. The photo of him being towered by Tim Robbins is hard to reconcile with him being a 6''4'' guy.
Most guys lose more than 1" by 84. In fact, the average man loses 1.2" by 70, and 2" by 80. Clint is in his mid 80's and has severe scoliosis.
jervis said on 26/Nov/14
Looks very like hugh lurie in hight and build as a younger man.
Looks very like hugh lurie in hight and build as a younger man.
jervis said on 26/Nov/14
I agree with filmfan always looked around 190 or191 to me peak.Now around 183 to 185 depending on posture.You just have to look at the clip on youtube with 193Harve Presnel and 188 Mahommad ali Clint is shorter than Presnel by at least an inch and taller than ali by about an inch,and that was in 1970 when he was at his peak.Also l think a lot of the old stars of the time lied about their hight and added about an inch.
I agree with filmfan always looked around 190 or191 to me peak.Now around 183 to 185 depending on posture.You just have to look at the clip on youtube with 193Harve Presnel and 188 Mahommad ali Clint is shorter than Presnel by at least an inch and taller than ali by about an inch,and that was in 1970 when he was at his peak.Also l think a lot of the old stars of the time lied about their hight and added about an inch.
BGee said on 24/Nov/14
Dang, 4 inches?! My granddad was about 6'2 in his prime and was still there by the time he died a few years back, and he did real extensive hard labor too, which is a lot more than a Hollywood star would go through. Wonder what cause such a dramatic shrink.
Dang, 4 inches?! My granddad was about 6'2 in his prime and was still there by the time he died a few years back, and he did real extensive hard labor too, which is a lot more than a Hollywood star would go through. Wonder what cause such a dramatic shrink.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/14
Haha the eyebrows hair and tan yeah. Obviously generally he looks like neither of them but he could certainly look like Clint from a distance in cowboy garb and beard. I thought that in Yellow Sky, a surprisingly good film actually.
Haha the eyebrows hair and tan yeah. Obviously generally he looks like neither of them but he could certainly look like Clint from a distance in cowboy garb and beard. I thought that in Yellow Sky, a surprisingly good film actually.
James B said on 22/Nov/14
Arch I thought Gregory peck was a dead ringer for Steven seagal actually in this pic
Click Here
Arch I thought Gregory peck was a dead ringer for Steven seagal actually in this pic
Click Here
1.89m said on 21/Nov/14
I never see 6-4" peak imo. 6-3.5" max peak if that. 6-3" imo.
I never see 6-4" peak imo. 6-3.5" max peak if that. 6-3" imo.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/14
Click Here 6'3" Peck on The Bravados poster looks a dead ringer for Clint and in height too!!
Click Here 6'3" Peck on The Bravados poster looks a dead ringer for Clint and in height too!!
Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/14
I caught Eastwood's first film the other day The Revenge of the Creature from 1955. LOL, the role was about as good an example of bad casting as you can get.
I caught Eastwood's first film the other day The Revenge of the Creature from 1955. LOL, the role was about as good an example of bad casting as you can get.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Nov/14
It could have been Sondra Locke! I think it's probably genetic. Eastwood was the poster boy for healthy living in an industry plagued with drug and alcohol problems. He did work out a lot though and lift a lot of weights, his height loss seems to be pretty similar to some of the bodybuilder types.
It could have been Sondra Locke! I think it's probably genetic. Eastwood was the poster boy for healthy living in an industry plagued with drug and alcohol problems. He did work out a lot though and lift a lot of weights, his height loss seems to be pretty similar to some of the bodybuilder types.
Sam said on 30/Oct/14
You make it sound like emotional stress or relationship problems has an contribution to height loss?
You make it sound like emotional stress or relationship problems has an contribution to height loss?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Oct/14
Eastwood's height loss is real bad. My uncle whose around the same age was 6ft5 peak and is still at least 6ft4 today. Almost like the polar opposite of this dude. No serious injuries, been married to the same woman for 40+ years (a statuesque 5ft11) and generally has a positive outlook on life.
Eastwood's height loss is real bad. My uncle whose around the same age was 6ft5 peak and is still at least 6ft4 today. Almost like the polar opposite of this dude. No serious injuries, been married to the same woman for 40+ years (a statuesque 5ft11) and generally has a positive outlook on life.
Mr. Kaplan said on 23/Oct/14
Morgan Freeman was never 6'3". He's 6'2". You can tell because he's shorter than 6'3" Sidney Poitier.
Morgan Freeman was never 6'3". He's 6'2". You can tell because he's shorter than 6'3" Sidney Poitier.
James said on 15/Oct/14
Clint has lost quite a bit of height due to aging. Back in the day, he was an intimidating guy. I met him, kind of, in California when I was a kid. My Dad and I got lost in Carmel, where Clint lives or used to live, and we stopped for directions at a convenience store. My father and I parked and stopped short of going in the store b/c Clint was walking out. I was probably 10 years old but I knew exactly who he was. Before I know it, my father was asking him for directions to our hotel. Clint could not have been more kind if he tried! He spent nearly 5 minutes directing us and part of what I remember is how huge he was next to my father. Keep in mind, I was about 10 and my dear old Dad is 5'6" on a grand day. After we got in the car, I told my Dad that we just got directions from "Dirty Harry." Great memory. Based on pics of Clint, I give him a 6'4" as an absolute max. He was tall on screen but he never, at least in my eyes had that looming feature that really tall actors have. These days, 6'2 absolute max. Hell of a nice guy!
Clint has lost quite a bit of height due to aging. Back in the day, he was an intimidating guy. I met him, kind of, in California when I was a kid. My Dad and I got lost in Carmel, where Clint lives or used to live, and we stopped for directions at a convenience store. My father and I parked and stopped short of going in the store b/c Clint was walking out. I was probably 10 years old but I knew exactly who he was. Before I know it, my father was asking him for directions to our hotel. Clint could not have been more kind if he tried! He spent nearly 5 minutes directing us and part of what I remember is how huge he was next to my father. Keep in mind, I was about 10 and my dear old Dad is 5'6" on a grand day. After we got in the car, I told my Dad that we just got directions from "Dirty Harry." Great memory. Based on pics of Clint, I give him a 6'4" as an absolute max. He was tall on screen but he never, at least in my eyes had that looming feature that really tall actors have. These days, 6'2 absolute max. Hell of a nice guy!
Arch Stanton said on 14/Oct/14
Rob have you got a really bad ass photo from the 60s or 70s to add, preferably Dollars or Dirty Harry?
Rob have you got a really bad ass photo from the 60s or 70s to add, preferably Dollars or Dirty Harry?
James B said on 11/Oct/14
Clint could be 183cm now
Clint could be 183cm now
Sam said on 10/Oct/14
Yeah he does look more 6'3" range in Hang En High, which I just reached part of on TV. 6'3.75" is possibly as valid as Eastwood as for Wayne.
Yeah he does look more 6'3" range in Hang En High, which I just reached part of on TV. 6'3.75" is possibly as valid as Eastwood as for Wayne.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Oct/14
Shrugs :-) I must admit that it's difficult to see him at 6 ft 6 in cowboy boots. I mean you can see 6 ft 5 but 6'6. Especially with the hat etc. But unless everybody elses heights are exaggerated I think there's enough proof to indicate 6'4 ish. In some cases he could look 194 actually, next to Lee Marvin and Rock Hudson for starters but generally 6'3.5-6'4 range like John Wayne.
Shrugs :-) I must admit that it's difficult to see him at 6 ft 6 in cowboy boots. I mean you can see 6 ft 5 but 6'6. Especially with the hat etc. But unless everybody elses heights are exaggerated I think there's enough proof to indicate 6'4 ish. In some cases he could look 194 actually, next to Lee Marvin and Rock Hudson for starters but generally 6'3.5-6'4 range like John Wayne.
Judd said on 9/Oct/14
roy, clint portrayed the blondie in the good, the bad and the ugly in 1966. he was 36 so in the core of his peak height and the editor rob said he was 6'4" when was young...6'0.5" it's his current height (2014) not peak...maybe you did not pay attention...
however i think he has never been a full 6'4", like tom selleck or Christopher Reeve...i would put him at 6'3.5".
roy, clint portrayed the blondie in the good, the bad and the ugly in 1966. he was 36 so in the core of his peak height and the editor rob said he was 6'4" when was young...6'0.5" it's his current height (2014) not peak...maybe you did not pay attention...
however i think he has never been a full 6'4", like tom selleck or Christopher Reeve...i would put him at 6'3.5".
James B said on 8/Oct/14
Arch that could indicate that clint was 6'3.5
Arch that could indicate that clint was 6'3.5
Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/14
Lee looked maybe an inch taller?
Lee looked maybe an inch taller?
Roy said on 8/Oct/14
Dear editor,
Clint Eastwood was way taller than 184cm during the Goid the Bad and the ugly.
He was around 191cm.
Please correct this.
Dear editor,
Clint Eastwood was way taller than 184cm during the Goid the Bad and the ugly.
He was around 191cm.
Please correct this.
James B said on 7/Oct/14
Arch yes but that was only the 'bar' scene from hang em high.
Arch how much taller on screen did Christopher Lee look in his prime compared to a peak clint?
Arch yes but that was only the 'bar' scene from hang em high.
Arch how much taller on screen did Christopher Lee look in his prime compared to a peak clint?
Buzzer said on 7/Oct/14
Anyone who thinks he isn't 6'4"....watch joe Kidd, about 8 mins in. He is next to Walcott, on a flat floor, & is exactly as tall..Walcott is six-four so is Clint. His awful posture has made him around six-one now
Anyone who thinks he isn't 6'4"....watch joe Kidd, about 8 mins in. He is next to Walcott, on a flat floor, & is exactly as tall..Walcott is six-four so is Clint. His awful posture has made him around six-one now
Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/14
Tallest? Coogan's Bluff
Shortest? Million Dollar Baby.
Looked almost 6'5" in the first and 6' max in the latter! Shortest in his prime? Probably Hang em High actually.
Tallest? Coogan's Bluff
Shortest? Million Dollar Baby.
Looked almost 6'5" in the first and 6' max in the latter! Shortest in his prime? Probably Hang em High actually.
James B said on 6/Oct/14
Arch which film did you think clint looked his tallest? I'd say Coogans Bluff where he looked taller than 6'4.
The shortest clint looked in his 'prime' from the films I have seen him in is probably a few dollars more where he looked 6ft2ish quite a lot.
Arch which film did you think clint looked his tallest? I'd say Coogans Bluff where he looked taller than 6'4.
The shortest clint looked in his 'prime' from the films I have seen him in is probably a few dollars more where he looked 6ft2ish quite a lot.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Oct/14
@James, They were a close item in real life from around 1975 to about 1984 I think so not surprising they often appeared together in a number of films during that period. Yeah, seems an odd choice, I mean a guy like Clint Eastwood, especially as a big movie star could have had any woman in the world, and in fairness he did have a lot of them from what I've read. Sondra Locke is one of those women who are not conventionally "beautiful", a bit scrawny and wide-eyed looking, like a lost animal or something, but I do get that she had that sexual thing which could captivate men Click Here
@James, They were a close item in real life from around 1975 to about 1984 I think so not surprising they often appeared together in a number of films during that period. Yeah, seems an odd choice, I mean a guy like Clint Eastwood, especially as a big movie star could have had any woman in the world, and in fairness he did have a lot of them from what I've read. Sondra Locke is one of those women who are not conventionally "beautiful", a bit scrawny and wide-eyed looking, like a lost animal or something, but I do get that she had that sexual thing which could captivate men Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Oct/14
Absolute lowest for a prime Eastwood 6ft3½-6ft3¾.
Absolute lowest for a prime Eastwood 6ft3½-6ft3¾.
James B said on 4/Oct/14
Arch its odd them pairing clint with Sandra lock in the gauntlet and his other films isn't it?
In a lot of his movies he'd usually have the hottest girl lol
Arch its odd them pairing clint with Sandra lock in the gauntlet and his other films isn't it?
In a lot of his movies he'd usually have the hottest girl lol
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/14
The Gauntlet is one of my favourites of his, a very underrated action film. I suspect it's where Dolph got the inspiration with Joshua Tree which has some similarities in locations and on the run sort of thing with girl.
The Gauntlet is one of my favourites of his, a very underrated action film. I suspect it's where Dolph got the inspiration with Joshua Tree which has some similarities in locations and on the run sort of thing with girl.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/14
@James Eastwood looked an inch taller than Jeff Daniels in Blood Work in most scenes! And The Gauntlet was one of those films where he looked his tallest and easily 6 ft 4 I thought.
@James Eastwood looked an inch taller than Jeff Daniels in Blood Work in most scenes! And The Gauntlet was one of those films where he looked his tallest and easily 6 ft 4 I thought.
James B said on 2/Oct/14
My opinions of how tall he looked in some of his films
Fistful of dollars 6'3-6'4
A few Dollars More 6'2-6'3
Dirty Harry 6'3
Coogans Bluff 6'5
Escape from Alcatraz 6'3-6'4
Magnum Force 6'3-6'4
Play Misty For Me 6'4-6'5
Heartbreak Ridge 6'3-6'4
Deadpool 6'2-6'3
Hang Em High 6'3-6'4
The Enforcer 6'3-6'4
Any Which Way you can 6'3-6'4
Where Eagles Dare 6'3
Sudden Impact 6'3-6'4
Good, Bad and Ugly 6'3-6'4
In Line of Fire 6'2-6'3
Pink Cadillac 6'2-6'3
Tightrope 6'3-6'4
City Heat 6'3-6'4
Un forgiven 6'2-6'3
The Gauntlet 6'3
Eieger Sanction 6'3-6'4
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6'3
Two Mules For Sister Sara 6'4
Blood work 6'2
My opinions of how tall he looked in some of his films
Fistful of dollars 6'3-6'4
A few Dollars More 6'2-6'3
Dirty Harry 6'3
Coogans Bluff 6'5
Escape from Alcatraz 6'3-6'4
Magnum Force 6'3-6'4
Play Misty For Me 6'4-6'5
Heartbreak Ridge 6'3-6'4
Deadpool 6'2-6'3
Hang Em High 6'3-6'4
The Enforcer 6'3-6'4
Any Which Way you can 6'3-6'4
Where Eagles Dare 6'3
Sudden Impact 6'3-6'4
Good, Bad and Ugly 6'3-6'4
In Line of Fire 6'2-6'3
Pink Cadillac 6'2-6'3
Tightrope 6'3-6'4
City Heat 6'3-6'4
Un forgiven 6'2-6'3
The Gauntlet 6'3
Eieger Sanction 6'3-6'4
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6'3
Two Mules For Sister Sara 6'4
Blood work 6'2
Arch Stanton said on 29/Sep/14
Humphreys was 5 ft 8 and yes Clint looks a solid 6'4 in comparison.
Humphreys was 5 ft 8 and yes Clint looks a solid 6'4 in comparison.
James B said on 19/Sep/14
Sam says on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.
I kinda like that film.
On a different note clint claiming "6ft4" a little over a decade ago is just as bizarre as his 'chair' speech.
Sam says on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.
I kinda like that film.
On a different note clint claiming "6ft4" a little over a decade ago is just as bizarre as his 'chair' speech.
Sam said on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.
James B said on 19/Sep/14
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?
Editor Rob
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?
Editor Rob it's hard to believe that one.
Danimal said on 18/Sep/14
Tim Robbins from 20 years ago who is not even standing straight (in the first pic) had at least 3" on THEN 6'3" Morgan Freeman (who also claimed to be 6'4" in his youth) and even had close to 4" on him in other pics:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I will admit, that Tim is looking closer to 6'5" TODAY at 55 years old than he did at 30-35 years old, but 20-25 years ago, he was minimum 6'6", if not 6'7" out of bed.
Tim Robbins from 20 years ago who is not even standing straight (in the first pic) had at least 3" on THEN 6'3" Morgan Freeman (who also claimed to be 6'4" in his youth) and even had close to 4" on him in other pics:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I will admit, that Tim is looking closer to 6'5" TODAY at 55 years old than he did at 30-35 years old, but 20-25 years ago, he was minimum 6'6", if not 6'7" out of bed.
Sam said on 18/Sep/14
Well, "a big 6'4" guy". A majority of these pictures have already been on here. There are some pictures where he does indeed look more a weak-to-strong 6'3":
w/ 6'4" Gregory Walcott Click Here
w/ 6'3" Michael Moriaty (not standing even, at times in Pale Rider Clint could look near an inch over him) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Gene Hackman Click Here
w/ 6'1.5" Jeff Bridges (bad shot, both are dropping height) Click Here
w/ 6'0.5" David Soul Click Here
w/ 6'4" Liam Neeson (again not the best) Click Here
w/ 6'3" Buddy Ebsen (there Clint even looks sub-6'3", weird shot) Click Here
But then, there's occasions where IMO he could really pass as 6'4"
w/ 6'2" Lee Marvin Click Here
w/ 6'4" George Kennedy (Kennedy's dropping more) Click Here
w/ 6'5" Rock Hudson & 6'3.75" John Wayne Click Here
w/ 6'4" John Gavin Click Here
w/ 6'4" Donald Sutherland Click Here
w/ 6'2" Lee Van Cleef (both dropping height, more so Van Cleef) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Forest Whitaker (Clint has advantage in postion but still hard to see anything near 6'3") Click Here
You could argue 6'3"-6'4" range, maybe 6'3.75" like Wayne but generally a flat 6'3" doesn't fit Eastwood pre-height loss!
Well, "a big 6'4" guy". A majority of these pictures have already been on here. There are some pictures where he does indeed look more a weak-to-strong 6'3":
w/ 6'4" Gregory Walcott Click Here
w/ 6'3" Michael Moriaty (not standing even, at times in Pale Rider Clint could look near an inch over him) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Gene Hackman Click Here
w/ 6'1.5" Jeff Bridges (bad shot, both are dropping height) Click Here
w/ 6'0.5" David Soul Click Here
w/ 6'4" Liam Neeson (again not the best) Click Here
w/ 6'3" Buddy Ebsen (there Clint even looks sub-6'3", weird shot) Click Here
But then, there's occasions where IMO he could really pass as 6'4"
w/ 6'2" Lee Marvin Click Here
w/ 6'4" George Kennedy (Kennedy's dropping more) Click Here
w/ 6'5" Rock Hudson & 6'3.75" John Wayne Click Here
w/ 6'4" John Gavin Click Here
w/ 6'4" Donald Sutherland Click Here
w/ 6'2" Lee Van Cleef (both dropping height, more so Van Cleef) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Forest Whitaker (Clint has advantage in postion but still hard to see anything near 6'3") Click Here
You could argue 6'3"-6'4" range, maybe 6'3.75" like Wayne but generally a flat 6'3" doesn't fit Eastwood pre-height loss!
James B said on 17/Sep/14
Andrea I do agree 6'4 does seem hard to imagine for clint Eastwood but 6'3 range seems easier to picture.. When I think of 6'4 someone like Steven Seagal pops in my head.
Saw escape from Alcatraz last night and in that film clint looked 6'3-6'3.5 range in that movie for sure.
Andrea I do agree 6'4 does seem hard to imagine for clint Eastwood but 6'3 range seems easier to picture.. When I think of 6'4 someone like Steven Seagal pops in my head.
Saw escape from Alcatraz last night and in that film clint looked 6'3-6'3.5 range in that movie for sure.
Danimal said on 17/Sep/14
James B says on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.
No. You shouldn't speak for everyone like that. I think Tim Robbins is at least 6'6" because he had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien, Over 3" on 6'2.5" listed John Cusack and the list goes on.
James B says on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.
No. You shouldn't speak for everyone like that. I think Tim Robbins is at least 6'6" because he had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien, Over 3" on 6'2.5" listed John Cusack and the list goes on.
Danimal said on 17/Sep/14
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70
Past 70? He's almost 85 years old.
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70
Past 70? He's almost 85 years old.
Danimal said on 17/Sep/14
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70
Pat 70? He's almost 85 years old.
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70
Pat 70? He's almost 85 years old.
Andrea said on 17/Sep/14
I admit i've never seen any movies of him when he was young... But was he really a big 6'4 guy? I mean, when i think to big 6'4 guys i think to a Jared Padalecki or Alexander Skargard, who always look very tall. It seems Arch is really convinced he was near that mark and he usually is very good in estimating heights... Today he looks 6' range, how did he lose 4 inches?
I admit i've never seen any movies of him when he was young... But was he really a big 6'4 guy? I mean, when i think to big 6'4 guys i think to a Jared Padalecki or Alexander Skargard, who always look very tall. It seems Arch is really convinced he was near that mark and he usually is very good in estimating heights... Today he looks 6' range, how did he lose 4 inches?
Arch Stanton said on 16/Sep/14
Me too Sam. I highly recommend Jersey Boys his latest BTW, I don't know why critics didn't think much of it. It's very well made IMO.
Me too Sam. I highly recommend Jersey Boys his latest BTW, I don't know why critics didn't think much of it. It's very well made IMO.
Sam said on 15/Sep/14
That link doesn't work for me, Arch. There's a good chance Clint was 6'3.75" for a beter of the day like Wayne.
I doubt Eastwood himself would put himself near the level as Day-Lewis, De Niro, Nicholson or Pacino, but I think as a director, he's good at recognizing acting talent in others. I respect him most as a director, secondarily as an actor and least as a politican (ignoring his love life on purpose!)
That link doesn't work for me, Arch. There's a good chance Clint was 6'3.75" for a beter of the day like Wayne.
I doubt Eastwood himself would put himself near the level as Day-Lewis, De Niro, Nicholson or Pacino, but I think as a director, he's good at recognizing acting talent in others. I respect him most as a director, secondarily as an actor and least as a politican (ignoring his love life on purpose!)
James B said on 13/Sep/14
A 6'3 1/2 clint eastwood would mean Donald Sutherland was 6'3 flat.
A 6'3 1/2 clint eastwood would mean Donald Sutherland was 6'3 flat.
James B said on 13/Sep/14
Cant upload your pic arch.
Cant upload your pic arch.
Anonymous1 said on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70, and you have 6' to 6'1. As for acting, if someone is both believable and entertaining in a role, they're a good actor in my book. I don't care about range, or if they can cry or if they are really just playing themselves. If I believe them and am entertained (Eastwood in his Dirty harry movies, or comedies), it's good acting. Most Acadamy Award winners are boring actors, to me.
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70, and you have 6' to 6'1. As for acting, if someone is both believable and entertaining in a role, they're a good actor in my book. I don't care about range, or if they can cry or if they are really just playing themselves. If I believe them and am entertained (Eastwood in his Dirty harry movies, or comedies), it's good acting. Most Acadamy Award winners are boring actors, to me.
James B said on 12/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.
Easy 2 inches? I am starting to suspect thst Connery could have been 6'1.75 peak. If Donald was that much taller then it would mean by 1987 Connery was 6'1-6'1.25 range.
Arch Stanton says on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.
Easy 2 inches? I am starting to suspect thst Connery could have been 6'1.75 peak. If Donald was that much taller then it would mean by 1987 Connery was 6'1-6'1.25 range.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.
James B said on 11/Sep/14
Clint in his prime could have been 2 inches taller than a peak sean Connery believe it or not. I am skeptical of the 6'2 1/2 claims for Connery since by the end of 70s he was looking 2 inches shorter than Sutherland. High chance sean was 6'1.5 by 1978.
Arch has pointed out that clint edged out Donald in Kelly's heroes which is decent evidence that clint Eastwood truly was 6'4. Donald was like 35 in that film so unlikely he was dropping height by that stage? In invasion of the body snatchers jeff goldblum looked near 6'4 1/2 in comparison to Sutherland i think?
192cm is always possible for clint but for the time timebeing...........
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm)
Clint in his prime could have been 2 inches taller than a peak sean Connery believe it or not. I am skeptical of the 6'2 1/2 claims for Connery since by the end of 70s he was looking 2 inches shorter than Sutherland. High chance sean was 6'1.5 by 1978.
Arch has pointed out that clint edged out Donald in Kelly's heroes which is decent evidence that clint Eastwood truly was 6'4. Donald was like 35 in that film so unlikely he was dropping height by that stage? In invasion of the body snatchers jeff goldblum looked near 6'4 1/2 in comparison to Sutherland i think?
192cm is always possible for clint but for the time timebeing...........
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm)
Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/14
As an actor of course Eastwood was never anywhere near as talented as the like of Daniel Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, De Niro and Al Pacino for instance, and Sergio Leone was all too aware of that, but as a film star with a unique identity he's certainly right up there with the biggest film actors of all time and most of his films are the sort you can watch again and again so that says it all.
As an actor of course Eastwood was never anywhere near as talented as the like of Daniel Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, De Niro and Al Pacino for instance, and Sergio Leone was all too aware of that, but as a film star with a unique identity he's certainly right up there with the biggest film actors of all time and most of his films are the sort you can watch again and again so that says it all.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/14
Yeha Sam I agree. I don't think Kyle or Scott come close to a peak Clint in looks. The thing is though Eastwood was never the best actor, certainly not a natural. A lot of his mannerisms are unintentional (like hissing his lines through his teeth etc) are just the way he was. I think in a lot of his roles he was being himself or at least exaggerating his true self which didn't require much exacting. I think his acting came through more in his more comic roles actually. He hit his peak as an actor in the 90s I think with some impressive performances but it is as a director he has been become accomplished I feel. Connery was never the greatest of actors either, but he had that leading man charisma and presence. Clint never had the smooth charm of Connery or Grant, but he definitely had that thing in a more rugged way. I'd put Cary Grant above both of them as an actor, his comic timing especially was brilliant but as Sam says you can't really compare them, they were three different actors, I don't think you can really compare any of them. They were unique and great for different reasons and great in the types of roles that they played. Clint was never intended as a romantic leading man type.
Yeha Sam I agree. I don't think Kyle or Scott come close to a peak Clint in looks. The thing is though Eastwood was never the best actor, certainly not a natural. A lot of his mannerisms are unintentional (like hissing his lines through his teeth etc) are just the way he was. I think in a lot of his roles he was being himself or at least exaggerating his true self which didn't require much exacting. I think his acting came through more in his more comic roles actually. He hit his peak as an actor in the 90s I think with some impressive performances but it is as a director he has been become accomplished I feel. Connery was never the greatest of actors either, but he had that leading man charisma and presence. Clint never had the smooth charm of Connery or Grant, but he definitely had that thing in a more rugged way. I'd put Cary Grant above both of them as an actor, his comic timing especially was brilliant but as Sam says you can't really compare them, they were three different actors, I don't think you can really compare any of them. They were unique and great for different reasons and great in the types of roles that they played. Clint was never intended as a romantic leading man type.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/14
I don't know James, I suppose it is because they're far enough away from average that it becomes harder to guess. You know what it's like guessing people over 6 ft 8. The margin of error is greater. Over 6'4" guessing becomes more difficult.
I don't know James, I suppose it is because they're far enough away from average that it becomes harder to guess. You know what it's like guessing people over 6 ft 8. The margin of error is greater. Over 6'4" guessing becomes more difficult.
Sam said on 11/Sep/14
Hmm, not sure what you mean on any of that...
Scott may be have more traditional good looks, if not his presence, charisma or directorial talent, but Kyle handsomer than Clint? I don't think so. Also, contend with Cary Grant? Cary Grant retired the same year that Clint got his breakthrough in A Fistfull of Dollars and they were 100% different kinds of actors/stars. Also, compared, Entertainment Weekly's list of 100 Greatest Movie Stars of all time listed Clint at 16 and Sean at 24...so, I think Eastwood more than contends with Connery in general.
Hmm, not sure what you mean on any of that...
Scott may be have more traditional good looks, if not his presence, charisma or directorial talent, but Kyle handsomer than Clint? I don't think so. Also, contend with Cary Grant? Cary Grant retired the same year that Clint got his breakthrough in A Fistfull of Dollars and they were 100% different kinds of actors/stars. Also, compared, Entertainment Weekly's list of 100 Greatest Movie Stars of all time listed Clint at 16 and Sean at 24...so, I think Eastwood more than contends with Connery in general.
James B said on 9/Sep/14
Kyle inherited clint eastwoods height and Scott inherited clint eastwoods good looks. That said Kyle facially is a bit better looking that his dad was in his prime and Clint was more notorious for his westerns and Dirty Harry films than his looks. He did have charisma, charm and height on his side but he still could not contend with leading men like Cary Grant or Sean Connery
Kyle inherited clint eastwoods height and Scott inherited clint eastwoods good looks. That said Kyle facially is a bit better looking that his dad was in his prime and Clint was more notorious for his westerns and Dirty Harry films than his looks. He did have charisma, charm and height on his side but he still could not contend with leading men like Cary Grant or Sean Connery
James B said on 9/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.
Why?
Arch Stanton says on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.
Why?
qartt said on 9/Sep/14
Rob why not add Kyle Eastwood. There are plenty of photos of kyle and clint back in 1988 when Kyle was 20, they looked pretty much the same size then.
Rob why not add Kyle Eastwood. There are plenty of photos of kyle and clint back in 1988 when Kyle was 20, they looked pretty much the same size then.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.
James B said on 8/Sep/14
True Arch but clint was a proper 6'3-6'3.5 range barefoot in the 80s and you wouldn't guess him at 6'5 would you? I guess as well clint wasn't skinny but even in earlier films when he was slimmer did not look over 6'4.
True Arch but clint was a proper 6'3-6'3.5 range barefoot in the 80s and you wouldn't guess him at 6'5 would you? I guess as well clint wasn't skinny but even in earlier films when he was slimmer did not look over 6'4.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Sep/14
Yeah James, a proper 6'4.5" barefoot will probably look 6'6" to most people anyway. And it's true that a lot of people underestimate how big a real 6'4.5-6'5" is. Just look at Guy Henry as your dad said!... My dad guessed Colin Salmon at 6'6 too!
Yeah James, a proper 6'4.5" barefoot will probably look 6'6" to most people anyway. And it's true that a lot of people underestimate how big a real 6'4.5-6'5" is. Just look at Guy Henry as your dad said!... My dad guessed Colin Salmon at 6'6 too!
James B said on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.
moe said on 5/Sep/14
Jame B is wrong. I've met Tim Robbins twice. He runs the Actor's Gang in Culver City and is a strong 6'5. Go down there and meet him for yourself.
Jame B is wrong. I've met Tim Robbins twice. He runs the Actor's Gang in Culver City and is a strong 6'5. Go down there and meet him for yourself.
James B said on 5/Sep/14
How tall would u say robbins is today then rob?
Editor Rob
How tall would u say robbins is today then rob?
Editor Rob possibly a fraction less, not a huge amount though, just a little.
James B said on 5/Sep/14
You think robbins is not as tall as you originally thought rob?
Editor Rob
You think robbins is not as tall as you originally thought rob?
Editor Rob he's probably at a stage where he could shrink a fraction.
James B said on 5/Sep/14
Robbins is closer to 6'5 than a flat 6'4 but common danimal he ain't over 6'5 like you say he is. These days 6'4.5 at night is likely for tim robbins.
Editor Rob
Robbins is closer to 6'5 than a flat 6'4 but common danimal he ain't over 6'5 like you say he is. These days 6'4.5 at night is likely for tim robbins.
Editor Rob Robbins looking Average. Howard stern Laughing at Robbins 6ft 5 claim.
Sam said on 5/Sep/14
@James, I'd question even the full inch difference between Neeson and Eastwood there, maybe 0.5-0.75 advantage for Neeson IMO.
@James, I'd question even the full inch difference between Neeson and Eastwood there, maybe 0.5-0.75 advantage for Neeson IMO.
Sam said on 5/Sep/14
@Arch Yeah, he was a frightening looking dude...I watched Twin Peaks and McGill as a decent guy in that he reminded me a bit of Robert Ryan in his good guy roles.
@Arch Yeah, he was a frightening looking dude...I watched Twin Peaks and McGill as a decent guy in that he reminded me a bit of Robert Ryan in his good guy roles.
Bill said on 5/Sep/14
I would have thought he'd still be around 6'2. I had no idea you could lose that much height.
Is that common?
I would have thought he'd still be around 6'2. I had no idea you could lose that much height.
Is that common?
Arch Stanton said on 5/Sep/14
I think by 1988 he could look a bit over 6 ft 3 next to a bit over 6 ft 4 peak Neeson. He certainly didn't look 6'4" next to James Cromwell. But he could look near it still at times in some of his early 90s films.
I think by 1988 he could look a bit over 6 ft 3 next to a bit over 6 ft 4 peak Neeson. He certainly didn't look 6'4" next to James Cromwell. But he could look near it still at times in some of his early 90s films.
Danimal said on 5/Sep/14
Rick says on 9/Aug/14
Clint Eastwood with 6'4" Tim Robbins
Click Here
Tim Robbins is not 6'4". He had several inches on Morgan Freeman. Is substantially taller than 6'2.5"-6'3" John Cusack and was noticeably taller than 6'4" Conan Obrien.
Rick says on 9/Aug/14
Clint Eastwood with 6'4" Tim Robbins
Click Here
Tim Robbins is not 6'4". He had several inches on Morgan Freeman. Is substantially taller than 6'2.5"-6'3" John Cusack and was noticeably taller than 6'4" Conan Obrien.
Sam said on 3/Sep/14
I forgot about Heartbreak Ridge, I kind of liked it, a bit underrated but I recall it loses steam near the end. Not the best shot considering Eastwood's camera advantage, but definitively was taller than McGill. McGill was a big imposing guy, at times in other roles I thought he was 6'3"+ but he has to be a weak 6'3" compared to Clint.
Click Here
I forgot about Heartbreak Ridge, I kind of liked it, a bit underrated but I recall it loses steam near the end. Not the best shot considering Eastwood's camera advantage, but definitively was taller than McGill. McGill was a big imposing guy, at times in other roles I thought he was 6'3"+ but he has to be a weak 6'3" compared to Clint.
Click Here
James B said on 2/Sep/14
Yeah in magnum force looked 6ft4 at times but he also looked 6'3 as well in that film which is why I think he was between those 2 heights.
Yeah in magnum force looked 6ft4 at times but he also looked 6'3 as well in that film which is why I think he was between those 2 heights.
James B said on 31/Aug/14
We don't know McGills official height cause he is not listed on this site. 6'3.5 consistent in the 80s? Remember 6'4 Liam Neeson had 1 inch or so on him in dead pool and in heartbreak ridge he stood with military posture where I think McGill had more relaxed posture.
We don't know McGills official height cause he is not listed on this site. 6'3.5 consistent in the 80s? Remember 6'4 Liam Neeson had 1 inch or so on him in dead pool and in heartbreak ridge he stood with military posture where I think McGill had more relaxed posture.
James B said on 31/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!
Slightly disagree Arch when he had on his officer uniform in that film he look slim/skinny. When he wore his tank top though he looked ripped and muscular. Personally i think in films like deapool, pink caddlilic and any which you can he looked really bulky and tough. In good the bad and ugly he looked well built also.
In heartbreak ridge his characters personality was as tough as hell that's for sure.
Arch Stanton says on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!
Slightly disagree Arch when he had on his officer uniform in that film he look slim/skinny. When he wore his tank top though he looked ripped and muscular. Personally i think in films like deapool, pink caddlilic and any which you can he looked really bulky and tough. In good the bad and ugly he looked well built also.
In heartbreak ridge his characters personality was as tough as hell that's for sure.
berta said on 31/Aug/14
he could still look 6 fot 1 if he standing tall. peak a little over 6 foot 3
he could still look 6 fot 1 if he standing tall. peak a little over 6 foot 3
Arch Stanton said on 31/Aug/14
Eastwood looked about an inch taller than Everett McGill in Heartbreak who is supposed to be 6'2.5" so 6'3.5 for mid 80s is consistent with Pale Rider and Dead Pool...
Eastwood looked about an inch taller than Everett McGill in Heartbreak who is supposed to be 6'2.5" so 6'3.5 for mid 80s is consistent with Pale Rider and Dead Pool...
Arch Stanton said on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!
Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/14
Looked near 6'4" and 220 pounds odd in Heartbreak Ridge.
Looked near 6'4" and 220 pounds odd in Heartbreak Ridge.
James B said on 18/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 18/Aug/14
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.
Haven't seen white Hunter. I think clint could look shorter than he really was in reality in a lot of his movies and to me he gave of the vibe of a guy who is between 6'2-6'3 in Line of Fire.
I mean just look show much shorter he looks next to Lady Di compared to 6'4 Tom selleck in the 80s.
Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 18/Aug/14
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.
Haven't seen white Hunter. I think clint could look shorter than he really was in reality in a lot of his movies and to me he gave of the vibe of a guy who is between 6'2-6'3 in Line of Fire.
I mean just look show much shorter he looks next to Lady Di compared to 6'4 Tom selleck in the 80s.
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 18/Aug/14
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.
James B said on 15/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 14/Aug/14
That's funny though James because he had around 4 inches on his co star who is listed at 6ft!
Was he sill 6'4 in lone of fire?
Arch Stanton says on 14/Aug/14
That's funny though James because he had around 4 inches on his co star who is listed at 6ft!
Was he sill 6'4 in lone of fire?
Arch Stanton said on 14/Aug/14
That's funny though James because he had around 4 inches on his co star who is listed at 6ft!
That's funny though James because he had around 4 inches on his co star who is listed at 6ft!
Anonymous1 said on 13/Aug/14
Hold the phone, here. Forget Robbins for a minute. Look at Eastwood next to Fishburne, in that photo posted by Rick. Eastwood has 2 to 3 inches on Fishburne, who is listed here, as anywhere between 5'10 and 6'0. Could it e Eastwood is still over 6 foot? But then again, Robbins looks huge next to him.
Hold the phone, here. Forget Robbins for a minute. Look at Eastwood next to Fishburne, in that photo posted by Rick. Eastwood has 2 to 3 inches on Fishburne, who is listed here, as anywhere between 5'10 and 6'0. Could it e Eastwood is still over 6 foot? But then again, Robbins looks huge next to him.
James B said on 12/Aug/14
Just my opinion but I really thought in the Line of Fire that clint looked 6'2 1/2. He did not look a proper 6'3 guy in that film.
Just my opinion but I really thought in the Line of Fire that clint looked 6'2 1/2. He did not look a proper 6'3 guy in that film.
Pip said on 12/Aug/14
Great pic from Rick...clearly shows his horrendous posture....Straighten him up & he'd be 6'4". Also, Robbins is a lot taller than that! He's 6'6
Great pic from Rick...clearly shows his horrendous posture....Straighten him up & he'd be 6'4". Also, Robbins is a lot taller than that! He's 6'6
James B said on 10/Aug/14
Robbins more 6'5 than 6'4
Robbins more 6'5 than 6'4
Danimal said on 9/Aug/14
I wonder if Clint is conscious of the fact that he no longer (and hasn't for quite some time) towered over people the way he did in the past. Must feel strange to once have been 6'4" and now 6'0". You're staring eye to eye with another 6 footer, knowing that once you would have had 4" on that person. I wonder if it enters his mind?
I wonder if Clint is conscious of the fact that he no longer (and hasn't for quite some time) towered over people the way he did in the past. Must feel strange to once have been 6'4" and now 6'0". You're staring eye to eye with another 6 footer, knowing that once you would have had 4" on that person. I wonder if it enters his mind?
Sam said on 8/Aug/14
Never have seen that scene with the very young Clint next to Rock Hudson...he looks a solid 6'4" IMO compared to Hudson there.
Never have seen that scene with the very young Clint next to Rock Hudson...he looks a solid 6'4" IMO compared to Hudson there.
James B said on 8/Aug/14
I guess his bad posture is why he often didn't look 6'4 in his film.
Like rob said 6'3 1/2 isn't impossible for his peal
I guess his bad posture is why he often didn't look 6'4 in his film.
Like rob said 6'3 1/2 isn't impossible for his peal
Pip said on 8/Aug/14
Clint has always had a really bad posture & at 84 looks as if his chest has folded into his stomach, as well as his spine clearly bending to the side (the right). This would easily give a height loss of around 4 inches. I agree with comments made before ie how many 6'2" actors has he consistently been taller than by 2"? Either they are all lying by 2" or he was 6'4".....the latter is right. Also, he is the same height in every scene with Walcott in Joe Kidd on level ground
Clint has always had a really bad posture & at 84 looks as if his chest has folded into his stomach, as well as his spine clearly bending to the side (the right). This would easily give a height loss of around 4 inches. I agree with comments made before ie how many 6'2" actors has he consistently been taller than by 2"? Either they are all lying by 2" or he was 6'4".....the latter is right. Also, he is the same height in every scene with Walcott in Joe Kidd on level ground
James B said on 7/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 7/Aug/14
Really doesn't suit him does it...
Wouldent catch his dad with a hairstyle like that
Arch Stanton says on 7/Aug/14
Really doesn't suit him does it...
Wouldent catch his dad with a hairstyle like that
Arch Stanton said on 7/Aug/14
Really doesn't suit him does it...
Really doesn't suit him does it...
James B said on 6/Aug/14
Yeah he does look just like clint and a lot it is to do with the hairstyle.
Iarch is It just me or does Scott eastwood look like a 90s david Beckham when he has curtains HA HA HA
Click Here
Yeah he does look just like clint and a lot it is to do with the hairstyle.
Iarch is It just me or does Scott eastwood look like a 90s david Beckham when he has curtains HA HA HA
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/14
Hey James check out the cover of Click Here Looks just like Clint in Play Misty for Me doesn't it! you almost expect him to spring up and say "Get off my back Evelyn!".
Hey James check out the cover of Click Here Looks just like Clint in Play Misty for Me doesn't it! you almost expect him to spring up and say "Get off my back Evelyn!".
James B said on 5/Aug/14
Arch - in some parts of hang em high clint Eastwood in terms of build reminded me a little of Jeff goldblum in the lost world. He didn't look quite as tall as Jeff but you know that long legged 'tall and lanky'' vibe.
In the the late 70s and onwards that is when he started too look less proportioned since his torso was in the early stages of shrinking by that stage.
Arch - in some parts of hang em high clint Eastwood in terms of build reminded me a little of Jeff goldblum in the lost world. He didn't look quite as tall as Jeff but you know that long legged 'tall and lanky'' vibe.
In the the late 70s and onwards that is when he started too look less proportioned since his torso was in the early stages of shrinking by that stage.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Aug/14
Eastwood would never have touched roids. Seagal looked about 180 in Above the Law and yeah 230-240 in the 90s.
Eastwood would never have touched roids. Seagal looked about 180 in Above the Law and yeah 230-240 in the 90s.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Aug/14
Seagal generally looks about an inch taller I think than Eastwood ever did but it's his girth as well which can give the impression of a much bigger guy.
Seagal generally looks about an inch taller I think than Eastwood ever did but it's his girth as well which can give the impression of a much bigger guy.
James B said on 2/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 2/Aug/14
Didn't Challenger 13 measure something like 6'3.4 though?? I doubt Clint was that low. James, I think he gives a strong 6'5" impression in boots in that scene. It's pure guesswork though, we'll never know his exact barefoot height so we're only likely to go around in circles! Most comparisons to actually point to a full 6'4". rather than 6'3.5".
Do you agree arch he looks taller than Steven Seagal ever looked in that one scene
Arch Stanton says on 2/Aug/14
Didn't Challenger 13 measure something like 6'3.4 though?? I doubt Clint was that low. James, I think he gives a strong 6'5" impression in boots in that scene. It's pure guesswork though, we'll never know his exact barefoot height so we're only likely to go around in circles! Most comparisons to actually point to a full 6'4". rather than 6'3.5".
Do you agree arch he looks taller than Steven Seagal ever looked in that one scene
Arch Stanton said on 2/Aug/14
Didn't Challenger 13 measure something like 6'3.4 though?? I doubt Clint was that low. James, I think he gives a strong 6'5" impression in boots in that scene. It's pure guesswork though, we'll never know his exact barefoot height so we're only likely to go around in circles! Most comparisons to actually point to a full 6'4". rather than 6'3.5".
Didn't Challenger 13 measure something like 6'3.4 though?? I doubt Clint was that low. James, I think he gives a strong 6'5" impression in boots in that scene. It's pure guesswork though, we'll never know his exact barefoot height so we're only likely to go around in circles! Most comparisons to actually point to a full 6'4". rather than 6'3.5".
James B said on 31/Jul/14
If you put a peak clint eastood under robs stadiometer he'd measure shy of 193cm. Hundred percent certain on that or basically not a legit 6'4.
I actually think a peak clint would measure similar to height challenger 13.
If you put a peak clint eastood under robs stadiometer he'd measure shy of 193cm. Hundred percent certain on that or basically not a legit 6'4.
I actually think a peak clint would measure similar to height challenger 13.
Gramps said on 30/Jul/14
Peak: 6-4
Today: 6-1 In several promo and production photos from this year's Jersey Boys, Clint looks about 2" shorter than the 6-3 Erich Bergen and about 2" taller than the 5-11 Vincent Piazza.
Peak: 6-4
Today: 6-1 In several promo and production photos from this year's Jersey Boys, Clint looks about 2" shorter than the 6-3 Erich Bergen and about 2" taller than the 5-11 Vincent Piazza.
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.
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.