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 14/Apr/13
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Eastwood began losing height in the 80s. He was 6'4" prime or at least 6'3.5". Agreed 6'4" evening height is hard to believe but I think he was a guy who genuinely measured 6'4" or a bit over in the morning. Daniele by 1988 he was a little over 6'3" I think based on comparison with Liam Neeson, by 1995 he was looking 6'2.5" range next to Meryl Streep and Arnie, by 2003 Mystic River period he'd shrunk to 6'1.5-6'2" range. He defiinitely wouldn't have been a strong 6'3' in 2003, compared him to Tim Robbins in 2003, he was looking 6'1.5"-6'2" range. Today I think he could just scrape 6'1" f stood straight earlier in the day but he can look barely 6' at times because of posture.
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Eastwood began losing height in the 80s. He was 6'4" prime or at least 6'3.5". Agreed 6'4" evening height is hard to believe but I think he was a guy who genuinely measured 6'4" or a bit over in the morning. Daniele by 1988 he was a little over 6'3" I think based on comparison with Liam Neeson, by 1995 he was looking 6'2.5" range next to Meryl Streep and Arnie, by 2003 Mystic River period he'd shrunk to 6'1.5-6'2" range. He defiinitely wouldn't have been a strong 6'3' in 2003, compared him to Tim Robbins in 2003, he was looking 6'1.5"-6'2" range. Today I think he could just scrape 6'1" f stood straight earlier in the day but he can look barely 6' at times because of posture.
Lenad said on 6/Apr/13
I dont think he was ever over 6'3
I dont think he was ever over 6'3
Parker said on 5/Apr/13
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
Eyes to bottom of nose ~ 2 inches.I do think Clint has at least an inch on DiCaprio, possibly 3cms. I think your estimate is bang on.
In regarding Clint's peak height. All I can say is I remember him speaking in an interview many years ago and he said at age 15 he was the second tallest in his school year at 6'4, the tallest being 6'5. He looked to have a good 2 inches on Robert Urich in Magnum Force. 10 years ago he would have been in his 70's and would have definately been below his peak height.
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
Eyes to bottom of nose ~ 2 inches.I do think Clint has at least an inch on DiCaprio, possibly 3cms. I think your estimate is bang on.
In regarding Clint's peak height. All I can say is I remember him speaking in an interview many years ago and he said at age 15 he was the second tallest in his school year at 6'4, the tallest being 6'5. He looked to have a good 2 inches on Robert Urich in Magnum Force. 10 years ago he would have been in his 70's and would have definately been below his peak height.
Mark said on 5/Apr/13
I'm confused. How can Eastwood have been a strong 6'3, which is only barely an inch from 6'4, but it not be conceivable that he was actually 6'4 when you saw him? I mean, we're only talking an inch. As for the 2 photos, here, with he and DiCaprio, they look the smae to me, making Eastwood, then, around 6'0 to 6'1. Personally, I say he was 6'3 peak, "maybe" 6'4 out of bed.
I'm confused. How can Eastwood have been a strong 6'3, which is only barely an inch from 6'4, but it not be conceivable that he was actually 6'4 when you saw him? I mean, we're only talking an inch. As for the 2 photos, here, with he and DiCaprio, they look the smae to me, making Eastwood, then, around 6'0 to 6'1. Personally, I say he was 6'3 peak, "maybe" 6'4 out of bed.
Daniele said on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
Daniele said on 1/Apr/13
If he stretches he can look even taller than 6ft 1in. I met him (I'm 6'1.5 on the dot), he was just a bit shorter than me because of his awful posture. He looks very tall in Sergio Leone's movies because he is slim and slounched. He was 6ft 3, + - 1cm, according to me. He was a really good looking man!
If he stretches he can look even taller than 6ft 1in. I met him (I'm 6'1.5 on the dot), he was just a bit shorter than me because of his awful posture. He looks very tall in Sergio Leone's movies because he is slim and slounched. He was 6ft 3, + - 1cm, according to me. He was a really good looking man!
eddie said on 31/Mar/13
6'3'5'' peak 6'0-511.5 now.
6'3'5'' peak 6'0-511.5 now.
Anonymous said on 25/Mar/13
Imo Id say clint was a round 6-3" peak,now lost a good few inches.
Imo Id say clint was a round 6-3" peak,now lost a good few inches.
Arch Stanton said on 25/Mar/13
He can still look 6'1" range in my opinion at times.
He can still look 6'1" range in my opinion at times.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Mar/13
Hey James, how tall does Chris Brosnan look proportionally to you Click Here . See him next to Pierce. He looks like he could be legit 6'4" doesn't he?
Hey James, how tall does Chris Brosnan look proportionally to you Click Here . See him next to Pierce. He looks like he could be legit 6'4" doesn't he?
Arch Stanton said on 14/Mar/13
Yeah LOL, James you're looking a bit too much into it! James, in Play Misty for Me because his hair was longer than normal his hair actually wasn't as high as it was as Dirty Harry due to the weight of it.
Yeah LOL, James you're looking a bit too much into it! James, in Play Misty for Me because his hair was longer than normal his hair actually wasn't as high as it was as Dirty Harry due to the weight of it.
Mark said on 3/Mar/13
For what little it's worth, I saw a photo of Chuck Connors (6'5), Larry Byrd and Robert Urich. Proximity to the camera aside, Urich looked a "great deal" shorter, 3 to 4 inches minimum, than Chuck Connors. I mention this because it's often assumed, on Eastwood's height page, that Urich was a full 6'2. I've never believed that. It's the same with David Soul. In judging Eastwood's height, often Urich's and Soul's are given as comparisons..those being 6'2 and 6'1, respectively. I've never believed that height, for either man, and believe, based on all I've seen and read of them, growing up in the 70's, that Urich was 6'1 tops, and Soul 5'11. Just my opinion, but nothing I've ever read here has given me cause to change my mind.
For what little it's worth, I saw a photo of Chuck Connors (6'5), Larry Byrd and Robert Urich. Proximity to the camera aside, Urich looked a "great deal" shorter, 3 to 4 inches minimum, than Chuck Connors. I mention this because it's often assumed, on Eastwood's height page, that Urich was a full 6'2. I've never believed that. It's the same with David Soul. In judging Eastwood's height, often Urich's and Soul's are given as comparisons..those being 6'2 and 6'1, respectively. I've never believed that height, for either man, and believe, based on all I've seen and read of them, growing up in the 70's, that Urich was 6'1 tops, and Soul 5'11. Just my opinion, but nothing I've ever read here has given me cause to change my mind.
James said on 28/Feb/13
6'3.5 is more sound for his peak.
6'3.5 is more sound for his peak.
Arch Stanton said on 25/Feb/13
Click Here
She wasn't hot in Play Misty for Me at all, but with long hair when she was younger, looks absolutely beautiful in that photo.
Click Here
She wasn't hot in Play Misty for Me at all, but with long hair when she was younger, looks absolutely beautiful in that photo.
James said on 24/Feb/13
Whatching play misty for me now and Clint looks 6ft4.5 for sure. That is probably his hairstlye creating that effect though.
Funny cause in dirty harry which came out the same year only looked 6ft3.
Whatching play misty for me now and Clint looks 6ft4.5 for sure. That is probably his hairstlye creating that effect though.
Funny cause in dirty harry which came out the same year only looked 6ft3.
James said on 24/Feb/13
seagal was claiming his out of bed height
seagal was claiming his out of bed height
James said on 23/Feb/13
Looked 191cm in the Gauntley
Looked 191cm in the Gauntley
wingnut said on 23/Feb/13
The shape of one's body can have an effect on how tall somebody look's.
Eastwood looked his tallest into his mid 40's.Then he bulked up for every which way but loose:looking wider and therefore not as rangy.
The shape of one's body can have an effect on how tall somebody look's.
Eastwood looked his tallest into his mid 40's.Then he bulked up for every which way but loose:looking wider and therefore not as rangy.
wingnut said on 23/Feb/13
I heard in a interview seagal say he was 6'5
I heard in a interview seagal say he was 6'5
TonyO said on 23/Feb/13
In the firing range scene in "Magnum Force", he looked at least 1" taller than Matheson and Urich.
In the firing range scene in "Magnum Force", he looked at least 1" taller than Matheson and Urich.
James said on 22/Feb/13
A textbook example of a 6'4 man would be Steven seagal not Clint eastwood
A textbook example of a 6'4 man would be Steven seagal not Clint eastwood
James said on 22/Feb/13
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm) peak
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm) peak
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm) peak
Jeff Bridges 6'1.25 (186cm) peak
Liam Neeson 6'4.5 (194cm) peak
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm) peak
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm) peak
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm) peak
Jeff Bridges 6'1.25 (186cm) peak
Liam Neeson 6'4.5 (194cm) peak
Arch Stanton said on 22/Feb/13
Yeah he does James, he certainly looks a solid 6'3" guy. Click Here He's certainly got the torso of a 6'4" guy anyway..
Yeah he does James, he certainly looks a solid 6'3" guy. Click Here He's certainly got the torso of a 6'4" guy anyway..
James said on 22/Feb/13
Christopher Lee did not look 6'5 in James bond
Christopher Lee did not look 6'5 in James bond
James said on 20/Feb/13
Arch the Indian guy looks 6'4 in the pic
Arch the Indian guy looks 6'4 in the pic
Arch Stanton said on 20/Feb/13
@Filmfan, it's widely known Clint had already begun losing height at least 10 years before. He was about 6'3" by 1990 and about 6'2" by 2000. Eastwood was taller than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
@Filmfan, it's widely known Clint had already begun losing height at least 10 years before. He was about 6'3" by 1990 and about 6'2" by 2000. Eastwood was taller than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
James said on 20/Feb/13
arch shocking how much beckham recently is looking facially similar too clint eastwood. the more becks is aging the more he is looking like clint.
beckham
Click Here
Click Here
clint eastwood
Click Here
Click Here
arch shocking how much beckham recently is looking facially similar too clint eastwood. the more becks is aging the more he is looking like clint.
beckham
Click Here
Click Here
clint eastwood
Click Here
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 20/Feb/13
See the final scene where Brigg's car blows up and Eastwood is walking and squinting in the sunlight outside a warehouse, he looks a genuine 6'4" in that scene. Yes as I said I thought he looked near 6'4" in most of the 60s and 70s films, 192 is always possible. But there is one scene with the police sergeant who also appeared in Dirty Harry and he's listed at 6' and Eastwood looked no more than 6'2.5" in comparison but he was probably slouching.
James an Indian guy on Rob's page is saying Abhishek Bachchan is 6'1.5" tops and this Rana Dagubatti guy is 6'2.5". I had always thought Abhishek to be 189 range but Dagubatti has him easily by an inch. Dagubatti is listed at 191cm but so is Abhishek who has also claimed 6'3". Any opinions? I think Dagubatti looks a genuine 6'3" guy Click Here and can look near 6'4" in some pics. I think he's probably 6'3" and Abhishek 6'2".
See the final scene where Brigg's car blows up and Eastwood is walking and squinting in the sunlight outside a warehouse, he looks a genuine 6'4" in that scene. Yes as I said I thought he looked near 6'4" in most of the 60s and 70s films, 192 is always possible. But there is one scene with the police sergeant who also appeared in Dirty Harry and he's listed at 6' and Eastwood looked no more than 6'2.5" in comparison but he was probably slouching.
James an Indian guy on Rob's page is saying Abhishek Bachchan is 6'1.5" tops and this Rana Dagubatti guy is 6'2.5". I had always thought Abhishek to be 189 range but Dagubatti has him easily by an inch. Dagubatti is listed at 191cm but so is Abhishek who has also claimed 6'3". Any opinions? I think Dagubatti looks a genuine 6'3" guy Click Here and can look near 6'4" in some pics. I think he's probably 6'3" and Abhishek 6'2".
James said on 19/Feb/13
Arch Stanton says on 18/Feb/13
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
At times i think he could pull of 6'4 in magnum force but mostly he looked 6'3.
do u agree that in play misty for me he looked a legit 6'4?
Arch Stanton says on 18/Feb/13
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
At times i think he could pull of 6'4 in magnum force but mostly he looked 6'3.
do u agree that in play misty for me he looked a legit 6'4?
Arch Stanton said on 18/Feb/13
filmfan says on 16/Feb/13
Just watched Escape from Alcatraz. A guy called Butts who is played by a 6'4'' actor appears alongside Eastwood and he does look a bit taller than Eastwood. Maybe 6'3'' is right for his prime afterall.
No, they looked about the same height, it was camera angle in the yard scene which made him seem taller. Watch the corridor scene when they're stood either side of the door they're roughly even. Eastwood even looked shorter than the fat guy in the shower scene who was 6'3", that doesn't mean he was 6'2"...
filmfan says on 16/Feb/13
Just watched Escape from Alcatraz. A guy called Butts who is played by a 6'4'' actor appears alongside Eastwood and he does look a bit taller than Eastwood. Maybe 6'3'' is right for his prime afterall.
No, they looked about the same height, it was camera angle in the yard scene which made him seem taller. Watch the corridor scene when they're stood either side of the door they're roughly even. Eastwood even looked shorter than the fat guy in the shower scene who was 6'3", that doesn't mean he was 6'2"...
Arch Stanton said on 18/Feb/13
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
James said on 16/Feb/13
This is how tall I think Clint looked in some of his films.
Dirty Harry 6ft3 (191cm)
Play Misty for Me 6ft4 (193cm) (cause of his hairdo)
Fire Fox 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Heartbreak Ridge 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Where Eagles Dare 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
In the Line of Fire 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Coogans Bluff 6ft4.5 (194cm) (he was in 2 inch cowboy boots)
Fistful of Dollars 6ft4 (193cm)
Dead pool 6ft3.25 (191cm)
The Enforcer 6ft3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6ft2.5 (189cm)
The Bridges of Madison County 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Any Which Way you can 6ft3 (191cm)
City Heat 6ft3 (191cm)
High Plains drifter 6ft4 (193cm)
Eiger Sanction 6ft3 (191cm)
Paint your wagon 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Escape from Alcatraz 6ft3 (191cm)
The Gauntlet 6ft3 (191cm)
Just by watching quite a few of his movies the overall impression I have got for Clint Eastwoods height is 6'3. I think in the dirty harry era he always looked 6'3 or occasionally 6'3.5.
Maybe he was a 192cm guy who could look 190-191cm cause of bad posture?
This is how tall I think Clint looked in some of his films.
Dirty Harry 6ft3 (191cm)
Play Misty for Me 6ft4 (193cm) (cause of his hairdo)
Fire Fox 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Heartbreak Ridge 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Where Eagles Dare 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
In the Line of Fire 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Coogans Bluff 6ft4.5 (194cm) (he was in 2 inch cowboy boots)
Fistful of Dollars 6ft4 (193cm)
Dead pool 6ft3.25 (191cm)
The Enforcer 6ft3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6ft2.5 (189cm)
The Bridges of Madison County 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Any Which Way you can 6ft3 (191cm)
City Heat 6ft3 (191cm)
High Plains drifter 6ft4 (193cm)
Eiger Sanction 6ft3 (191cm)
Paint your wagon 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Escape from Alcatraz 6ft3 (191cm)
The Gauntlet 6ft3 (191cm)
Just by watching quite a few of his movies the overall impression I have got for Clint Eastwoods height is 6'3. I think in the dirty harry era he always looked 6'3 or occasionally 6'3.5.
Maybe he was a 192cm guy who could look 190-191cm cause of bad posture?
James said on 16/Feb/13
Eastwood at 6'3.5 puts Sutherland at 6'3 flat.
Eastwood at 6'3.5 puts Sutherland at 6'3 flat.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Feb/13
Yeah, but we keep coming back to Sutherland having an easy 2 inches on Connery and Eastwood edging out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes... i believe Sutherland was 6'3.5" and Eastwood I think he's was pretty much a full 6'4" at least in the morning, I definitely think his peak was more 192-193 than 191-2 or whatever anybody else claims here.
Yeah, but we keep coming back to Sutherland having an easy 2 inches on Connery and Eastwood edging out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes... i believe Sutherland was 6'3.5" and Eastwood I think he's was pretty much a full 6'4" at least in the morning, I definitely think his peak was more 192-193 than 191-2 or whatever anybody else claims here.
Gus said on 14/Feb/13
near certainty 192cm peak
near certainty 192cm peak
James said on 14/Feb/13
yeah i think he looked more a strong 6'3 than a proper 6'4 man.
yeah i think he looked more a strong 6'3 than a proper 6'4 man.
matt678 said on 13/Feb/13
Rob dont u think 6ft3 peak is more realistic then 6ft4? I've never seen any proof that hes 6ft4 ever
Editor Rob
Rob dont u think 6ft3 peak is more realistic then 6ft4? I've never seen any proof that hes 6ft4 ever
Editor Rob while 6ft 3.5 is always a chance, I'm not sure just 6ft 3 flat for him...
James said on 9/Feb/13
190cm is what I think he appeared in that film
190cm is what I think he appeared in that film
James said on 9/Feb/13
In Firefox looked a weak 6'3
In Firefox looked a weak 6'3
Henrik said on 9/Feb/13
Vegas says on 5/Feb/13
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
-----
Vader seems to be slouching though, while Glover is standing as straight as he can.
Vegas says on 5/Feb/13
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
-----
Vader seems to be slouching though, while Glover is standing as straight as he can.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Feb/13
Rob, do you think it would be very painful living with that spine condition? The curvature looks horrendous.
Editor Rob
Rob, do you think it would be very painful living with that spine condition? The curvature looks horrendous.
Editor Rob yeah, it's the old classic hunchback that won't be exactly pain free
Arch Stanton said on 8/Feb/13
He looks 6'5" range in boots I thought, same as he looked in the Dollars trilogy and most of his old westerns.
Editor Rob
He looks 6'5" range in boots I thought, same as he looked in the Dollars trilogy and most of his old westerns.
Editor Rob R3 would have lost maybe nearly 4 inches in height himself with the curved spine
James said on 6/Feb/13
In heartbreak ridge looked a legit 6'2.5 with good army posture.
In heartbreak ridge looked a legit 6'2.5 with good army posture.
James said on 6/Feb/13
Do u agree Arch that that Clint looked 6'4-6'5 with his 2 inch cowboy boots in coogans bluff? I don't think he really appeared 6'6 in that film cause 198cm is just 1 inch short of giant territory. Clint just appeared 'very tall' in that film.
Do u agree Arch that that Clint looked 6'4-6'5 with his 2 inch cowboy boots in coogans bluff? I don't think he really appeared 6'6 in that film cause 198cm is just 1 inch short of giant territory. Clint just appeared 'very tall' in that film.
James said on 6/Feb/13
Play Misty for me was one of the few films where Clint Eastwood looked 6'4.
In his spaghetti westerns he really did not look 193cm.
Play Misty for me was one of the few films where Clint Eastwood looked 6'4.
In his spaghetti westerns he really did not look 193cm.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Feb/13
Hey folks, check out Click Here . And you think Eastwood's spine is in a bad shape. Richard III's spine is like S shaped!! Rob how much height do you reckon Richard III would have lost from having a spine condition like that?
Hey folks, check out Click Here . And you think Eastwood's spine is in a bad shape. Richard III's spine is like S shaped!! Rob how much height do you reckon Richard III would have lost from having a spine condition like that?
Vegas said on 5/Feb/13
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
James said on 4/Feb/13
John Wayne at times could look 6'5
John Wayne at times could look 6'5
Arch Stanton said on 3/Feb/13
Actually Outlaw, Clint, John Wayne and Tom Selleck can all seem more like 6'2 on screen at times and it often takes a comparison with somebody to realise they're very tall. I guess the Duke could look nearer his height alone more because he was much heavy built than Eastwood. I think that Eastwood and Wanye looked the same height though and I believe they were 6'4" ish maybe 6'3.5". The only thing is, in the old westerns there was a tendency to cast big macho guys so they often didn't stand out much. Eastwood stood out more in GBU next to then 5'7" Eli Wallach.
Actually Outlaw, Clint, John Wayne and Tom Selleck can all seem more like 6'2 on screen at times and it often takes a comparison with somebody to realise they're very tall. I guess the Duke could look nearer his height alone more because he was much heavy built than Eastwood. I think that Eastwood and Wanye looked the same height though and I believe they were 6'4" ish maybe 6'3.5". The only thing is, in the old westerns there was a tendency to cast big macho guys so they often didn't stand out much. Eastwood stood out more in GBU next to then 5'7" Eli Wallach.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Feb/13
Prowse has lost the most height out of anybody even Hulk Hogan and Clint.
Prowse has lost the most height out of anybody even Hulk Hogan and Clint.
James said on 3/Feb/13
how about.....
clint eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
George kennedy 6'4 (183cm)
how about.....
clint eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
George kennedy 6'4 (183cm)
Henrik said on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back. According to Rob who saw Prowse recently, he doesn't stand much taller than 6' flat these days.
Reeve was 6'4" according to himself.
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back. According to Rob who saw Prowse recently, he doesn't stand much taller than 6' flat these days.
Reeve was 6'4" according to himself.
Chris said on 3/Feb/13
Ever seen Gran Torino, Rob? How tall do you think the neighbor kid is? Eastwood looks a bit less than 6 ft in this film imho
Editor Rob
Ever seen Gran Torino, Rob? How tall do you think the neighbor kid is? Eastwood looks a bit less than 6 ft in this film imho
Editor Rob can't remember much about heights in that movie
Outlaw said on 2/Feb/13
James, here is a picture of the two during The Eiger Sanction: Click Here
They're both wearing the same footwear. If Kennedy were to stand straight, like Eastwood, he'd likely edge him out. However, the difference in height would still be VERY little.
James, here is a picture of the two during The Eiger Sanction: Click Here
They're both wearing the same footwear. If Kennedy were to stand straight, like Eastwood, he'd likely edge him out. However, the difference in height would still be VERY little.
wingnut said on 2/Feb/13
outlaw.Yeah,sorry about that.
re-runs of course.
Also,speaking of dave prowse,I just resd an article about him training christopher reeve for superman.He said he-prowse-was 6'7 which surprised me
because I thought he was 6'5.
He also said reeve was 6'5.
As for eastwood, he was imo 6'4 and very lean looking,although over the years
he's lost 3-4 inches.It does happen.
outlaw.Yeah,sorry about that.
re-runs of course.
Also,speaking of dave prowse,I just resd an article about him training christopher reeve for superman.He said he-prowse-was 6'7 which surprised me
because I thought he was 6'5.
He also said reeve was 6'5.
As for eastwood, he was imo 6'4 and very lean looking,although over the years
he's lost 3-4 inches.It does happen.
Jamesy said on 2/Feb/13
If danson was 190cm then tom selleck could look 194cm next too him
If danson was 190cm then tom selleck could look 194cm next too him
James said on 2/Feb/13
eastwood looked shorter than george kennedy in eiger sanction
eastwood looked shorter than george kennedy in eiger sanction
Outlaw said on 1/Feb/13
Oh, wingnut... There are no recent Cheers episodes, unfortunately. But, yeah, in Cheers, Danson's character claims 6'3". I believe he was 6'2.5" prime, but 6'3" isn't ruled out.
While Clint Eastwood, standing alone, never gave me the impression of a 6'4" guy, I believe he was just that. In fact, in his "Man With No Name" series, I could only see about 6'1" for him, until he stood next to someone.
In The Eiger Sanction, when he walked and stood next to George Kennedy (who I believe was 6'4.5"), he looked, more or less, identical in height. In every shot they were in. I believe the footwear was similar, too.
Oh, wingnut... There are no recent Cheers episodes, unfortunately. But, yeah, in Cheers, Danson's character claims 6'3". I believe he was 6'2.5" prime, but 6'3" isn't ruled out.
While Clint Eastwood, standing alone, never gave me the impression of a 6'4" guy, I believe he was just that. In fact, in his "Man With No Name" series, I could only see about 6'1" for him, until he stood next to someone.
In The Eiger Sanction, when he walked and stood next to George Kennedy (who I believe was 6'4.5"), he looked, more or less, identical in height. In every shot they were in. I believe the footwear was similar, too.
Henrik said on 1/Feb/13
@Nitro_90:
I don't think there's any evidence on it but yes, I seem to have gotten that impression. I believe taller people are claimed to have more back problems overall, and I don't see why height shrinkage would not be one of these problems.
Apart from Clint, we also have David Prowse and Christopher Lee. Some also claim that Sean Connery is 6' flat these days.
@Nitro_90:
I don't think there's any evidence on it but yes, I seem to have gotten that impression. I believe taller people are claimed to have more back problems overall, and I don't see why height shrinkage would not be one of these problems.
Apart from Clint, we also have David Prowse and Christopher Lee. Some also claim that Sean Connery is 6' flat these days.
wingnut said on 31/Jan/13
In a recent cheers episode,Danson said he was 6'3
In a recent cheers episode,Danson said he was 6'3
Nitro_90 said on 30/Jan/13
Wow, he lost 9 cm of his peak height, that's unbelievable.
Is it true that taller people lose more height when they get old?
Wow, he lost 9 cm of his peak height, that's unbelievable.
Is it true that taller people lose more height when they get old?
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jan/13
Ted Danson did look near 190 at peak, agreed.
Ted Danson did look near 190 at peak, agreed.
Jamesy said on 19/Jan/13
Although with potentially 190cm Ted Danson he looks a legit 6'4.
Although with potentially 190cm Ted Danson he looks a legit 6'4.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jan/13
Yeah, I think he generally looks 6'3".
Yeah, I think he generally looks 6'3".
Jamesy said on 17/Jan/13
Arch I think selleck looked just 6'3 in the three men and a baby films would u agree?
Arch I think selleck looked just 6'3 in the three men and a baby films would u agree?
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jan/13
James, Tom Selleck like Eastwood and John Wayne is another of those around 6'4" guys who you think "is he really that big" on screen. All of them can seem more 6'2" a lot, even in the older films, do you agree?
James, Tom Selleck like Eastwood and John Wayne is another of those around 6'4" guys who you think "is he really that big" on screen. All of them can seem more 6'2" a lot, even in the older films, do you agree?
Larc 74in said on 16/Jan/13
Definitely not 6'4, 6'3 flat seems far more realistic for his peak, today he's around 6'0-6'0.5:
Click Here
Definitely not 6'4, 6'3 flat seems far more realistic for his peak, today he's around 6'0-6'0.5:
Click Here
Maximus Meridius said on 13/Jan/13
Hey Rob is it rare for anyone in their 70s too lose almost 4 inches in height normal height loss for anyone in their 70s is no more than a inch or two he should only be about 6ft 2in you should upgrade him ive heard people lose height in their 50s but i think the 50s is too young too lose height even the 60s is too young too lose height people don't normally lose height at least until they hit their 70s people today even in their 50s and even in their 60s are still at that prime height.
Hey Rob is it rare for anyone in their 70s too lose almost 4 inches in height normal height loss for anyone in their 70s is no more than a inch or two he should only be about 6ft 2in you should upgrade him ive heard people lose height in their 50s but i think the 50s is too young too lose height even the 60s is too young too lose height people don't normally lose height at least until they hit their 70s people today even in their 50s and even in their 60s are still at that prime height.
James said on 11/Jan/13
Yeah no way 6'4 in 80s. Even that height is debatable for his his peak.
6'3 range in 1980s
Yeah no way 6'4 in 80s. Even that height is debatable for his his peak.
6'3 range in 1980s
Sam said on 9/Jan/13
And what if I don't? :=)
And what if I don't? :=)
James said on 8/Jan/13
Well 6'3.5 range is not impossible hence why maybe he did not look 6'6-6'7 in cowboy boots.
Of course its possible that Clint really was 193cm but I would not rule out 192cm either.
Well 6'3.5 range is not impossible hence why maybe he did not look 6'6-6'7 in cowboy boots.
Of course its possible that Clint really was 193cm but I would not rule out 192cm either.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Jan/13
Sam says on 7/Jan/13
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
Cowboy boots, 1.5-2 inches, big western hat which adds several inches, long western coat and long thin build, by no stretch of the imagination could you imagine a legit 6'4" guy seeming more 6'6"-6'7" range..
Sam says on 7/Jan/13
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
Cowboy boots, 1.5-2 inches, big western hat which adds several inches, long western coat and long thin build, by no stretch of the imagination could you imagine a legit 6'4" guy seeming more 6'6"-6'7" range..
James said on 7/Jan/13
I think 6'3.5 at night at his peak... Although it depends how much height Clint lost during the day?
Clint of course probably measured 6'4-6'5 out of bed
I think 6'3.5 at night at his peak... Although it depends how much height Clint lost during the day?
Clint of course probably measured 6'4-6'5 out of bed
Gus said on 7/Jan/13
I agree with James,at peak Clint was 6'3.5. I think 6'4 is pushing it perhaps,in The Gauntlet last night aged about 47 Clint looked 6'3 flat and had probably lost a centimeter.
I agree with James,at peak Clint was 6'3.5. I think 6'4 is pushing it perhaps,in The Gauntlet last night aged about 47 Clint looked 6'3 flat and had probably lost a centimeter.
James said on 7/Jan/13
Maybe he had footware advantage over Sean?
Its fair too say Connery was no taller than 6'1.5 by that time. The difference between a 6'3.25 and 6'1.5 man is virtually 2 inches anyway
Maybe he had footware advantage over Sean?
Its fair too say Connery was no taller than 6'1.5 by that time. The difference between a 6'3.25 and 6'1.5 man is virtually 2 inches anyway
Sam said on 7/Jan/13
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jan/13
James, see the John Wayne page, somebody found a 1948 passport and he's at 1.88m on it!!
James, see the John Wayne page, somebody found a 1948 passport and he's at 1.88m on it!!
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jan/13
No, otherwise Connery was 6'1".
No, otherwise Connery was 6'1".
James said on 6/Jan/13
Arch do u agree that donald Sutherland was more of a 6'3 guy at his peak?
In my opinion I think Clint was a very strong 6'3.5 whereas Sutherland was a very solid 191cm like 6'3.25
Arch do u agree that donald Sutherland was more of a 6'3 guy at his peak?
In my opinion I think Clint was a very strong 6'3.5 whereas Sutherland was a very solid 191cm like 6'3.25
Arch Stanton said on 6/Jan/13
Andi pandi says on 5/Jan/13
Are you all kidding me here?
No idea what you mean, but yes, he's way off 6'4 today, clearly.
Andi pandi says on 5/Jan/13
Are you all kidding me here?
No idea what you mean, but yes, he's way off 6'4 today, clearly.
James said on 5/Jan/13
Yeah Arch true.... Probably just the way the time were shot perhaps?
Yeah Arch true.... Probably just the way the time were shot perhaps?
Andi pandi said on 5/Jan/13
There was a comment on his costumes being compared from gran torino vs. etc. shoulder height of jacket to floor is entirely different than top of head to floor. Just from working out trap muscles heavily, can effect height at shoulder an inch-2 inches. So that wld explain difference in height at shoulder since he wld be much more jacked in earlier films than in gran torino!
There was a comment on his costumes being compared from gran torino vs. etc. shoulder height of jacket to floor is entirely different than top of head to floor. Just from working out trap muscles heavily, can effect height at shoulder an inch-2 inches. So that wld explain difference in height at shoulder since he wld be much more jacked in earlier films than in gran torino!
Andi pandi said on 5/Jan/13
Are you all kidding me here?
Are you all kidding me here?
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/13
The strange thing I guess James is that you'd expect a legit 6'4" guy in those long western coats, boots and hat to look 6'7" and that's definitely pushing it, he never looked that big..
The strange thing I guess James is that you'd expect a legit 6'4" guy in those long western coats, boots and hat to look 6'7" and that's definitely pushing it, he never looked that big..
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/13
Clint still looked very tall in some scenes in Pale Rider. But those real long western coats and cowboy boots give the illusion of making people look taller. Did you see the baddies stand in a line at the end in that film? They looked seriously imposing, as imposing if not more imposing than any of the bad asses from 80s action films. One of them was 6'4"-6'5" legit, he appeared in some of Clin's other 70s westerns, can't think of his name right now though. But Christopher Lloyd was dressed the same way in Back to the Future III and gave the illusion of 6'3"-6'4" in some scenes. Well he might have been 6'3" ish in cowboy boots at peak anyway, but his long frame, long coat, hat and boots definitely made him look taller than 6'1" in that film.
Clint still looked very tall in some scenes in Pale Rider. But those real long western coats and cowboy boots give the illusion of making people look taller. Did you see the baddies stand in a line at the end in that film? They looked seriously imposing, as imposing if not more imposing than any of the bad asses from 80s action films. One of them was 6'4"-6'5" legit, he appeared in some of Clin's other 70s westerns, can't think of his name right now though. But Christopher Lloyd was dressed the same way in Back to the Future III and gave the illusion of 6'3"-6'4" in some scenes. Well he might have been 6'3" ish in cowboy boots at peak anyway, but his long frame, long coat, hat and boots definitely made him look taller than 6'1" in that film.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/13
I used to too. When I read 6 ft 4 for Clint in a newspaper I was shocked!! To the casual eye I'd suppose you'd think of him as tall but 6'4" is really a height which is starting to get real big barefoot where you'd start to notice it more. I never noticed it watching some of his films as a kid. But if you see most of his films actually you can see that he was taller than 6'2" and pretty much 192-193cm range.
I used to too. When I read 6 ft 4 for Clint in a newspaper I was shocked!! To the casual eye I'd suppose you'd think of him as tall but 6'4" is really a height which is starting to get real big barefoot where you'd start to notice it more. I never noticed it watching some of his films as a kid. But if you see most of his films actually you can see that he was taller than 6'2" and pretty much 192-193cm range.
James said on 4/Jan/13
if larry hankin is 6'3 then again that does suppourt these 6'2 peak estimates for clint eastwood. and also he was shorter than that 6'3 guy in the shower scene wasn't he?
it does seem a coincidence that a lot of people think a peak clint was 6'2 doesn't it arch? i for one think he was 192-193cm range peak since he edged out 191-192cm donald sutherland in kelly hearoes. too me sutherland was 6'3.25 peak.
if larry hankin is 6'3 then again that does suppourt these 6'2 peak estimates for clint eastwood. and also he was shorter than that 6'3 guy in the shower scene wasn't he?
it does seem a coincidence that a lot of people think a peak clint was 6'2 doesn't it arch? i for one think he was 192-193cm range peak since he edged out 191-192cm donald sutherland in kelly hearoes. too me sutherland was 6'3.25 peak.
James said on 4/Jan/13
clints probably on higher ground. Too me there looked just about 1.5 inches (3-4cm) between the 2. esspecially in the scenes they shared in the prision yard.
i do agree though arch i thought clint could still look 6'4 compared too Moriarty. But i think he had on bigger cowboy boots? i did think that mortiarty might have been 6'2.5 but he did look minimum 6'3 next too 6ft.25 denzel.
clints probably on higher ground. Too me there looked just about 1.5 inches (3-4cm) between the 2. esspecially in the scenes they shared in the prision yard.
i do agree though arch i thought clint could still look 6'4 compared too Moriarty. But i think he had on bigger cowboy boots? i did think that mortiarty might have been 6'2.5 but he did look minimum 6'3 next too 6ft.25 denzel.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Jan/13
Can't tell what the ground is like but they were definitely very close in height in the film. Oh and in one scene they're sitting down on the yard steps and Clint's legs looked a bit longer. But he has the legs of a 6'6" guy so that doesn't mean anything! Watched Pale Rider yesterday and Eastwood looked a bit taller than Michael Moriarty I thought, don't know who said Moriarty was taller but Clint looked taller to me. Moriarty is 6'3" ish. He also wasn't dwarfed by Richard Kiel. Actually in one of the last scenes in which he shoots a band dead in a cafe and walks out into the open in the town I thought he looked 6'6" range in the boots and hat. I think a 1985 Clint was not under 6'3.5".
Can't tell what the ground is like but they were definitely very close in height in the film. Oh and in one scene they're sitting down on the yard steps and Clint's legs looked a bit longer. But he has the legs of a 6'6" guy so that doesn't mean anything! Watched Pale Rider yesterday and Eastwood looked a bit taller than Michael Moriarty I thought, don't know who said Moriarty was taller but Clint looked taller to me. Moriarty is 6'3" ish. He also wasn't dwarfed by Richard Kiel. Actually in one of the last scenes in which he shoots a band dead in a cafe and walks out into the open in the town I thought he looked 6'6" range in the boots and hat. I think a 1985 Clint was not under 6'3.5".
James said on 3/Jan/13
WTF Shaun I thought charlie butts looked taller than Clint. There looked a good 1 inch between the 2 in fact.
Of course by 1979 its not impossible for Clint too have lost a bit of height. I'd say he was around 6'3 by late 70's.
Of course though its not impossible that charlie was 194cm?
WTF Shaun I thought charlie butts looked taller than Clint. There looked a good 1 inch between the 2 in fact.
Of course by 1979 its not impossible for Clint too have lost a bit of height. I'd say he was around 6'3 by late 70's.
Of course though its not impossible that charlie was 194cm?
Mathew said on 3/Jan/13
Arch Stanton says on 3/Jan/13
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
---
Larry Hankin looks much more like 6'3" though.
Arch Stanton says on 3/Jan/13
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
---
Larry Hankin looks much more like 6'3" though.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/13
Strange but that Wolf (Bruce M. Fisher) looks taller than Eastwood in the shower scene but on the yard he barely looks taller than "English" the 6'1.5" black librarian! On one of the yard scenes in which Charlie Butts meets Litmus and believes he is Al Capone Butts actually looks even taller than Eastwood but Eastwood is lifting weights and slouching.
Strange but that Wolf (Bruce M. Fisher) looks taller than Eastwood in the shower scene but on the yard he barely looks taller than "English" the 6'1.5" black librarian! On one of the yard scenes in which Charlie Butts meets Litmus and believes he is Al Capone Butts actually looks even taller than Eastwood but Eastwood is lifting weights and slouching.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/13
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/13
In Escape to Alcatrz actually there is a scene where Doc is about to slice off his fingers and a lot of inmates pass Eastwood and Charlie Butts at the doorway and all of them but one were shorter than Eastwood most of them half- a full head shorter. I think that Charlie Butts guy is close in height to Eastwood, they tower over most of the inmates in it.
In Escape to Alcatrz actually there is a scene where Doc is about to slice off his fingers and a lot of inmates pass Eastwood and Charlie Butts at the doorway and all of them but one were shorter than Eastwood most of them half- a full head shorter. I think that Charlie Butts guy is close in height to Eastwood, they tower over most of the inmates in it.
Frank said on 1/Jan/13
I dont think that Eastwood was taller than 6.3 barefoot in his peak.
Now 6.0 maximum i think...
I dont think that Eastwood was taller than 6.3 barefoot in his peak.
Now 6.0 maximum i think...
James said on 1/Jan/13
i defo thought in the dirty harry police station scenes that clint eastwood gave of a 6'1.5-6'2 impression whereas reni looked 5'11
i defo thought in the dirty harry police station scenes that clint eastwood gave of a 6'1.5-6'2 impression whereas reni looked 5'11
Edgar_Hernandez said on 31/Dec/12
happy new year to all.
thanks for all editor Rob.
happy new year to all.
thanks for all editor Rob.
James said on 27/Dec/12
Arch Stanton says on 26/Dec/12
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
True in batman forever val kilmer looked like a guy who was in the 5'10 range. likewise in taken liam neeson at times could defo look signifigantly shorter than 6'4.
there are exceptions though cause in braveheart mel gibson appeared 5'11-5'11.5 but that was probably because he had on big lifts
Arch Stanton says on 26/Dec/12
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
True in batman forever val kilmer looked like a guy who was in the 5'10 range. likewise in taken liam neeson at times could defo look signifigantly shorter than 6'4.
there are exceptions though cause in braveheart mel gibson appeared 5'11-5'11.5 but that was probably because he had on big lifts
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/12
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/12
Got the Escape from Alcatraz DVD for Christmas. Watch it yesterday. Strangely in a lot of scenes Clint looked 6'2" tops, and he also strangely looked a good inch shorter than the "shower buddy" Bruce M. Fischer who is listed at 6'3" and if anything looks a solid 6'4" guy and near 300 pounds. The scene where Clint walks into the jail he looked 6'1"-6'2" LOL!! But he definitely looked 6'4" next to the 6'1.5" black librarian in it.
Got the Escape from Alcatraz DVD for Christmas. Watch it yesterday. Strangely in a lot of scenes Clint looked 6'2" tops, and he also strangely looked a good inch shorter than the "shower buddy" Bruce M. Fischer who is listed at 6'3" and if anything looks a solid 6'4" guy and near 300 pounds. The scene where Clint walks into the jail he looked 6'1"-6'2" LOL!! But he definitely looked 6'4" next to the 6'1.5" black librarian in it.
Original said on 24/Dec/12
6'3.25" in peak.
6'3.25" in peak.
James said on 24/Dec/12
Arch if reni is 6'1 then 6'3.75 could be on the money for clint
Arch if reni is 6'1 then 6'3.75 could be on the money for clint
Arch Stanton said on 24/Dec/12
Watched Dirty Harry yesterday James and that Reni Santoni guy I thought looked 2.5-3 inches shorter than Eastwood in the corridor scene. He's listed as 6'1, and he definitely more than 2 inches shorter than Eastwood as you once claimed James.
Watched Dirty Harry yesterday James and that Reni Santoni guy I thought looked 2.5-3 inches shorter than Eastwood in the corridor scene. He's listed as 6'1, and he definitely more than 2 inches shorter than Eastwood as you once claimed James.
James said on 17/Dec/12
Arch u seen recent pics of Beckham on Getty images? He really has perfected the dirty harry look
Arch u seen recent pics of Beckham on Getty images? He really has perfected the dirty harry look
James said on 17/Dec/12
Arch his hair and slim build can make him taller in that clip but yeah 6'4 seems fair in that clip or maybe 6'3.5?
Arch his hair and slim build can make him taller in that clip but yeah 6'4 seems fair in that clip or maybe 6'3.5?
Arch Stanton said on 17/Dec/12
Actually yes Edgar, Christopher Reeve and Clint had very similar shoulders. I don't think Reeve was broader than Eastwood, maybe after intensive training periods but generally they were pretty similar; also both were around 215 pounds with training. Very similar frames.
Actually yes Edgar, Christopher Reeve and Clint had very similar shoulders. I don't think Reeve was broader than Eastwood, maybe after intensive training periods but generally they were pretty similar; also both were around 215 pounds with training. Very similar frames.
Arch Stanton said on 17/Dec/12
Not naturally though Henrik. Those shoulders were the result of intense training!! Although Eastwood did lift a lot of weights too. Naturally he would have been a beanpole.
Not naturally though Henrik. Those shoulders were the result of intense training!! Although Eastwood did lift a lot of weights too. Naturally he would have been a beanpole.
Edgar_Hernandez said on 17/Dec/12
henrik, if I can help you, this a better comparation:
Click Here
Click Here
the same pose.
henrik, if I can help you, this a better comparation:
Click Here
Click Here
the same pose.
Henrik said on 16/Dec/12
Mossop says on 8/Dec/12
Saw Superman the other day & Gene Hackman was a little shorter than Chris Reeve by about the same amount as he was shorter than Eastwood in the 70's & early 80's. I'd give hime around 6'4" in his prime but his posture is so poor it's no wonder he looks around 6'1 ish now
-----
In the film, Reeve wore flats, while Hackman wore much thicker footwear. It should be visible in some scenes. Reeve was very similar to a peak Eastwood in proportions. Lanky and extremely long-legged:
Click Here
Click Here
One difference was that Reeve had much better developed shoulders.
Mossop says on 8/Dec/12
Saw Superman the other day & Gene Hackman was a little shorter than Chris Reeve by about the same amount as he was shorter than Eastwood in the 70's & early 80's. I'd give hime around 6'4" in his prime but his posture is so poor it's no wonder he looks around 6'1 ish now
-----
In the film, Reeve wore flats, while Hackman wore much thicker footwear. It should be visible in some scenes. Reeve was very similar to a peak Eastwood in proportions. Lanky and extremely long-legged:
Click Here
Click Here
One difference was that Reeve had much better developed shoulders.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Dec/12
Click Here
James see 2:27-2:35. You've got to admit he does appear a legit 6'4" don't you think?
Click Here
James see 2:27-2:35. You've got to admit he does appear a legit 6'4" don't you think?
Mossop said on 8/Dec/12
Saw Superman the other day & Gene Hackman was a little shorter than Chris Reeve by about the same amount as he was shorter than Eastwood in the 70's & early 80's. I'd give hime around 6'4" in his prime but his posture is so poor it's no wonder he looks around 6'1 ish now
Saw Superman the other day & Gene Hackman was a little shorter than Chris Reeve by about the same amount as he was shorter than Eastwood in the 70's & early 80's. I'd give hime around 6'4" in his prime but his posture is so poor it's no wonder he looks around 6'1 ish now
Arch Stanton said on 8/Dec/12
Click Here
Brubeck's tribute to Chopin. Amazing. In B flat minor, I can figure out the first part on the piano. So cool when it goes into the jazzed up part.
Click Here
Brubeck's tribute to Chopin. Amazing. In B flat minor, I can figure out the first part on the piano. So cool when it goes into the jazzed up part.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Dec/12
Eastwood was a good friend of Dave Brubeck, RIP jazzman.
Click Here
Rob this was taken when Brubeck would have been 88 or 89. With Michelle Obama, De Niro, Spingsteen and Obama I think he looks 6ft range don't you? Although Michelle Obama must be wearing big heels here as she looks 6'2"-6'3". Based on his height here do you think a peak of 6'2"-6'3" might be possible? I've seen him in old videos in his prime when stood up and like another jazz pianist legend Bill Evans looked noticeably tall. Brubeck's son BTW claims 6 ft 9, so he must have some tall genes.
Eastwood was a good friend of Dave Brubeck, RIP jazzman.
Click Here
Rob this was taken when Brubeck would have been 88 or 89. With Michelle Obama, De Niro, Spingsteen and Obama I think he looks 6ft range don't you? Although Michelle Obama must be wearing big heels here as she looks 6'2"-6'3". Based on his height here do you think a peak of 6'2"-6'3" might be possible? I've seen him in old videos in his prime when stood up and like another jazz pianist legend Bill Evans looked noticeably tall. Brubeck's son BTW claims 6 ft 9, so he must have some tall genes.
James said on 26/Nov/12
Minimum 191cm peak
Minimum 191cm peak
Gus said on 25/Nov/12
I reckon Eastwood was 191cm peak,of which he stayed till late 70s early 80s. 36 inch leg inseam,40 inch chest,6'3 inches tall,till about 1977.
I reckon Eastwood was 191cm peak,of which he stayed till late 70s early 80s. 36 inch leg inseam,40 inch chest,6'3 inches tall,till about 1977.
James said on 25/Nov/12
It would not surprise me if liam neson would be near 1 inch taller than Clint Eastwood when they were both at there peaks.
It would not surprise me if liam neson would be near 1 inch taller than Clint Eastwood when they were both at there peaks.
James said on 25/Nov/12
6'3 flat in 1984?
6'3 flat in 1984?
angeleyes said on 25/Nov/12
I thought he looked slightly shorter than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and in the more recent Space Cowboys. I do believe however that both were about 6'4'' at one time. Maybe not quite as tall as Jeff Goldblum or Liam Neeson who look a little over 6'4'' but just on the mark perhaps.
I thought he looked slightly shorter than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and in the more recent Space Cowboys. I do believe however that both were about 6'4'' at one time. Maybe not quite as tall as Jeff Goldblum or Liam Neeson who look a little over 6'4'' but just on the mark perhaps.
Arch Stanton said on 25/Nov/12
Vegas says on 24/Nov/12
city heat was on tv the other night, clint looks 6'2 max in that compared to burt reynolds, reynolds was completely dwarfed by 6'6 nfl measured gary godsey about 8-9 years ago
A while back Rising Force posted a picture showing Reynold's lifts in that film. Reynolds looked 6 ft 1 in his lifts and was still a bit shorter than Eastwood even in the tip toes scene. Nothing under 6'3.5" in 1984.
Vegas says on 24/Nov/12
city heat was on tv the other night, clint looks 6'2 max in that compared to burt reynolds, reynolds was completely dwarfed by 6'6 nfl measured gary godsey about 8-9 years ago
A while back Rising Force posted a picture showing Reynold's lifts in that film. Reynolds looked 6 ft 1 in his lifts and was still a bit shorter than Eastwood even in the tip toes scene. Nothing under 6'3.5" in 1984.
Vegas said on 24/Nov/12
city heat was on tv the other night, clint looks 6'2 max in that compared to burt reynolds, reynolds was completely dwarfed by 6'6 nfl measured gary godsey about 8-9 years ago
city heat was on tv the other night, clint looks 6'2 max in that compared to burt reynolds, reynolds was completely dwarfed by 6'6 nfl measured gary godsey about 8-9 years ago
Arch Stanton said on 23/Nov/12
Wayne to me usually looked 6'3"-6'4" like Eastwood. I 've never watched a John Wayne movie and thought he looked as big as Rock Hudson on screen. I'm going through his films at the moment, started with Range Feud.
Wayne to me usually looked 6'3"-6'4" like Eastwood. I 've never watched a John Wayne movie and thought he looked as big as Rock Hudson on screen. I'm going through his films at the moment, started with Range Feud.
James said on 23/Nov/12
No I haven't... Sometimes Wayne could look 6'5 in some of his films
No I haven't... Sometimes Wayne could look 6'5 in some of his films
Arch Stanton said on 22/Nov/12
James have you seen the Searchers? John Wayne could look 6'2"-6'3" at times like Eastwood.
James have you seen the Searchers? John Wayne could look 6'2"-6'3" at times like Eastwood.
James said on 21/Nov/12
Arch what about.....
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
Do u agree?
Arch what about.....
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
Do u agree?
Arch Stanton said on 20/Nov/12
Alison Eastwood is taller than Scott in heels! He can't be more than 5'10 surely.
Alison Eastwood is taller than Scott in heels! He can't be more than 5'10 surely.
James said on 17/Nov/12
6'3 maybe arch? He looks close too how tall his dad was at peak
His other son is short so he ain't so lucky.
6'3 maybe arch? He looks close too how tall his dad was at peak
His other son is short so he ain't so lucky.
James said on 17/Nov/12
Buy he did edge out Donald Sutherland mark
Buy he did edge out Donald Sutherland mark
Mark said on 16/Nov/12
I knew a 6'6 guy. It's beyond tall. Eastwood, with 2 inch cowboy boots (Coogan's Bluff), never dwarfed people in them the way a 6'6 guy does. He was/is tall, for sure. But I'll always stick with 6'3-ish, "maybe" 6'4 early in the day. And I'm not prepared to say (type) that Don Stroud was realy 6'2.
I knew a 6'6 guy. It's beyond tall. Eastwood, with 2 inch cowboy boots (Coogan's Bluff), never dwarfed people in them the way a 6'6 guy does. He was/is tall, for sure. But I'll always stick with 6'3-ish, "maybe" 6'4 early in the day. And I'm not prepared to say (type) that Don Stroud was realy 6'2.
James said on 16/Nov/12
His son is one of those 6'2 guys who looks 6'4
His son is one of those 6'2 guys who looks 6'4
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/12
Rob, what do you think the height difference his here between Kyle and the trumpet player? When Kyle stands straighter it has to be easily 12 inches?
Editor Rob
Rob, what do you think the height difference his here between Kyle and the trumpet player? When Kyle stands straighter it has to be easily 12 inches?
Editor Rob maybe he's a bit nearer the camera adding a little
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/12
Click Here
James, here's Eastwood's son, I regularly play along on my guitar to their stuff, really good. He looks 6'2" next to Clint but you have to admit his son looks 6'4" here too, look at the height difference between him and the trumpet player, like a 10 inch height difference at least!
Click Here
James, here's Eastwood's son, I regularly play along on my guitar to their stuff, really good. He looks 6'2" next to Clint but you have to admit his son looks 6'4" here too, look at the height difference between him and the trumpet player, like a 10 inch height difference at least!
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/12
Dmeyer says on 12/Nov/12
Hé bits DiCaprio too hard to be less than 184cm
Yeah I still think if he stood up as straight as possible he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day.
Dmeyer says on 12/Nov/12
Hé bits DiCaprio too hard to be less than 184cm
Yeah I still think if he stood up as straight as possible he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day.
Dmeyer said on 12/Nov/12
Hé bits DiCaprio too hard to be less than 184cm
Hé bits DiCaprio too hard to be less than 184cm
Arch Stanton said on 12/Nov/12
Stroud was a similar height to Robert Davi in License to Kill. And peak height Davi could have been 6'2.5". I don't think Stroud is under 6'2' but its possible, 6'1" I doubt, maybe today he is that height.
Stroud was a similar height to Robert Davi in License to Kill. And peak height Davi could have been 6'2.5". I don't think Stroud is under 6'2' but its possible, 6'1" I doubt, maybe today he is that height.
James said on 11/Nov/12
Would u not rule put 6'3.75 for a peak Clint Eastwood arch?
Would u not rule put 6'3.75 for a peak Clint Eastwood arch?
James said on 11/Nov/12
I thought Connery looked 6'1 with Russia with love. However I don't think 6'1 peak is possible since he was bigger than 6ft Harrison ford
I thought Connery looked 6'1 with Russia with love. However I don't think 6'1 peak is possible since he was bigger than 6ft Harrison ford
Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
Connery looked 6'1.5" tops in Never Say Never again in 1983 next to those 6'4" and 6'4.5" actors.
Connery looked 6'1.5" tops in Never Say Never again in 1983 next to those 6'4" and 6'4.5" actors.
James said on 11/Nov/12
The 6'8 guy looks like Clive Owen lol
The 6'8 guy looks like Clive Owen lol
James said on 11/Nov/12
Connery must have been 187cm then by 1980
Connery must have been 187cm then by 1980
Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
I'll watch Play Misty for Me tonight, from what I remember he did look 6'4" in that film but in one scene with a 6' listed cop he oddly looked 6'2.5"-6'3".
Click Here
Hehe James, even a 6'5"guy can look 6'2" at times. But the guy on the left, his brother, is 6'8"!
I'll watch Play Misty for Me tonight, from what I remember he did look 6'4" in that film but in one scene with a 6' listed cop he oddly looked 6'2.5"-6'3".
Click Here
Hehe James, even a 6'5"guy can look 6'2" at times. But the guy on the left, his brother, is 6'8"!
Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery. A 1970 Eastwood was 6'4" range.
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery. A 1970 Eastwood was 6'4" range.
James said on 10/Nov/12
Arch - Sutherland's peak has been downgraded too 6'3.5..... could you tell the difference if Eastwood was 6'3.75 and Sutherland 6'3.5?
U never know Sutherland could have been just 6'3 flat peak but then he did have 2 inches in Sean Connery.
Arch - Sutherland's peak has been downgraded too 6'3.5..... could you tell the difference if Eastwood was 6'3.75 and Sutherland 6'3.5?
U never know Sutherland could have been just 6'3 flat peak but then he did have 2 inches in Sean Connery.
James said on 10/Nov/12
Not sure about 6'2 but 6'3.5 range peak is debatable for sure
I did not think he looked taller than 6'4 in coogans bluff... maybe they made door frames smaller for that film?
I thought as well he looked 6'3 compared too George Kennedy in Eiger sanction and that was with his hair all high up.
Not sure about 6'2 but 6'3.5 range peak is debatable for sure
I did not think he looked taller than 6'4 in coogans bluff... maybe they made door frames smaller for that film?
I thought as well he looked 6'3 compared too George Kennedy in Eiger sanction and that was with his hair all high up.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Nov/12
You also overlooked Copnovelist that Eastwood had two inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film, even accounting for footwear.
You also overlooked Copnovelist that Eastwood had two inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film, even accounting for footwear.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Nov/12
Copnovelist195 says on 9/Nov/12
I read a biography of him that said he was 6ft2 in his prime. In Space Cowboys (2000), he is about two inches shorter than 6ft4 Donald Sutherland. In Coogan's Bluff (1968) he can walk under doorways wearing cowboy boots with elevated heels and a stetson, plus he had big hair that stood up.
Funny, but in Kelly's Heroes shot in 1969, Eastwood edged out Sutherland, I gather you've never seen that film. By 2000 Eastwood had already shrunk to 6'2" range.
Copnovelist195 says on 9/Nov/12
I read a biography of him that said he was 6ft2 in his prime. In Space Cowboys (2000), he is about two inches shorter than 6ft4 Donald Sutherland. In Coogan's Bluff (1968) he can walk under doorways wearing cowboy boots with elevated heels and a stetson, plus he had big hair that stood up.
Funny, but in Kelly's Heroes shot in 1969, Eastwood edged out Sutherland, I gather you've never seen that film. By 2000 Eastwood had already shrunk to 6'2" range.
Copnovelist195 said on 9/Nov/12
I read a biography of him that said he was 6ft2 in his prime. In Space Cowboys (2000), he is about two inches shorter than 6ft4 Donald Sutherland. In Coogan's Bluff (1968) he can walk under doorways wearing cowboy boots with elevated heels and a stetson, plus he had big hair that stood up. A 6ft4 man couldn't walk under doorways in that gear. I once went to Mann's Chinese Restaurant on the Hollywood Strip, and matched my hands up to his imprints in the pavement and he had enormous hands. So did Charlton Heston. Mine matched up exactly with James Stewart and Cary Grant.
I read a biography of him that said he was 6ft2 in his prime. In Space Cowboys (2000), he is about two inches shorter than 6ft4 Donald Sutherland. In Coogan's Bluff (1968) he can walk under doorways wearing cowboy boots with elevated heels and a stetson, plus he had big hair that stood up. A 6ft4 man couldn't walk under doorways in that gear. I once went to Mann's Chinese Restaurant on the Hollywood Strip, and matched my hands up to his imprints in the pavement and he had enormous hands. So did Charlton Heston. Mine matched up exactly with James Stewart and Cary Grant.
James said on 9/Nov/12
Well she is 5'1 Arch. Clint Eastwood at 192-193cm was just about very tall.
Well she is 5'1 Arch. Clint Eastwood at 192-193cm was just about very tall.
James said on 8/Nov/12
Looks 5'11-5'11.5 in that photo Shaun.
I wonder how a peak Clint would measure up next too Hugh? I think there would be 2 inches between the 2.....
Clint Eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
Hugh Jackman 6'1.5 (187cm)
Maybe?
I have no doubt thought that Clint Eastwood would have towered David Beckham by easily 4 inches in his prime. I wonder sometimes if Beckham is more 5'11 than 6ft
Looks 5'11-5'11.5 in that photo Shaun.
I wonder how a peak Clint would measure up next too Hugh? I think there would be 2 inches between the 2.....
Clint Eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
Hugh Jackman 6'1.5 (187cm)
Maybe?
I have no doubt thought that Clint Eastwood would have towered David Beckham by easily 4 inches in his prime. I wonder sometimes if Beckham is more 5'11 than 6ft
Arch Stanton said on 8/Nov/12
Nah, he's a family man.
Click Here
He looks nowhere near 6'2" in that photo!!
Nah, he's a family man.
Click Here
He looks nowhere near 6'2" in that photo!!
James said on 7/Nov/12
Arch I suspect Hugh is an alcoholic don't u? He has that look sometimes (especially his eyes) that suggests he is a drinker not too mention he is looking very thin at the moment.
Arch I suspect Hugh is an alcoholic don't u? He has that look sometimes (especially his eyes) that suggests he is a drinker not too mention he is looking very thin at the moment.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/12
Clint Eastwood is known for being inconsistent with people though, he'll be friendly with some and plain mean and rude to others. You'd think he'd have more in common with Jackman than JT, you'd never think Eastwood would cast an ex Nsync kid with curly hair who dated Britney in his film would you? Jackman's looks tend to vary quite a bit, with a slick quiff and a grey suit or something at times he can look as good as any guy can possibly look, but I've also seen him with very short hair, in shoes and his face looking quite anaemic looking and he looked barely better than average.
Clint Eastwood is known for being inconsistent with people though, he'll be friendly with some and plain mean and rude to others. You'd think he'd have more in common with Jackman than JT, you'd never think Eastwood would cast an ex Nsync kid with curly hair who dated Britney in his film would you? Jackman's looks tend to vary quite a bit, with a slick quiff and a grey suit or something at times he can look as good as any guy can possibly look, but I've also seen him with very short hair, in shoes and his face looking quite anaemic looking and he looked barely better than average.
James said on 7/Nov/12
Arch Stanton says on 7/Nov/12
LOL. nah he'd smile at Beckham, shake his hand and then turn around and scowl and hiss "You aint too bright kid".
There was an article from 2007 where clint eastwood stated that he was looking foward too meeting beckham. don't know if the article is fake or not though?
Arch Stanton says on 7/Nov/12
LOL. nah he'd smile at Beckham, shake his hand and then turn around and scowl and hiss "You aint too bright kid".
There was an article from 2007 where clint eastwood stated that he was looking foward too meeting beckham. don't know if the article is fake or not though?
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/12
LOL. nah he'd smile at Beckham, shake his hand and then turn around and scowl and hiss "You aint too bright kid".
LOL. nah he'd smile at Beckham, shake his hand and then turn around and scowl and hiss "You aint too bright kid".
James said on 5/Nov/12
Hey Arch off topic but do you Clint Eastwood would give David Beckham an attitude like he did with Hugh Jackman if they met in person lol?
Hey Arch off topic but do you Clint Eastwood would give David Beckham an attitude like he did with Hugh Jackman if they met in person lol?
James said on 5/Nov/12
Arch since David is 184cm would that have made Clint Eastwood 192cm?
Arch since David is 184cm would that have made Clint Eastwood 192cm?
Arch Stanton said on 5/Nov/12
About 3 inches excluding the hair advantage.
About 3 inches excluding the hair advantage.
James said on 3/Nov/12
Shaun how many inches taller than David soul did he look too you?
Shaun how many inches taller than David soul did he look too you?
Arch Stanton said on 3/Nov/12
He did look 6'4" to me because of his lanky legs. Watch him walk in Fistful of Dollars and his legs while he is being beaten up, super long.
He did look 6'4" to me because of his lanky legs. Watch him walk in Fistful of Dollars and his legs while he is being beaten up, super long.
James said on 31/Oct/12
If u did not know his height how tall do u think he looked in his 1960s westerns?
If u did not know his height how tall do u think he looked in his 1960s westerns?
Arch Stanton said on 31/Oct/12
Shaun = Arch Stanton OK James?
Yeah he did look 6'4"-6'5" in boots but didn't look 6 ft 6 in boots and hat, that's the strange thing. A lanky legit 6'4" in cowboy boots and hat should give a 6'7" impression you'd think...
Shaun = Arch Stanton OK James?
Yeah he did look 6'4"-6'5" in boots but didn't look 6 ft 6 in boots and hat, that's the strange thing. A lanky legit 6'4" in cowboy boots and hat should give a 6'7" impression you'd think...
James said on 31/Oct/12
He did not look 6'4 in his spaghetti western films from the 1960s
He did not look 6'4 in his spaghetti western films from the 1960s
angeleyes said on 30/Oct/12
6'4'' in prime and looked it. Now about 6'1'' I guess.
6'4'' in prime and looked it. Now about 6'1'' I guess.
James said on 30/Oct/12
I think Timberlake tends too have poor posture making him look 5'11ish but I think 183 or 184cm is on target for Justin.
I think Timberlake tends too have poor posture making him look 5'11ish but I think 183 or 184cm is on target for Justin.
Shaun said on 30/Oct/12
Squinty eyes and receding hair line with black hair, that's about it LOL. James why are you so convinced Timberlake is at least 6 ft? I think he's nearer 5'11, wasn't he shorter than David Beckham?
Squinty eyes and receding hair line with black hair, that's about it LOL. James why are you so convinced Timberlake is at least 6 ft? I think he's nearer 5'11, wasn't he shorter than David Beckham?
James said on 29/Oct/12
I have a DVD box set of some of seagals films and one of my friends thought he looked like pierce brosnan on one of the DVD covers....
I have a DVD box set of some of seagals films and one of my friends thought he looked like pierce brosnan on one of the DVD covers....
Shaun said on 29/Oct/12
Not really, never though that...Can't think of anybody who really looks like Seagal, he's quite unique looking..
Not really, never though that...Can't think of anybody who really looks like Seagal, he's quite unique looking..
James said on 29/Oct/12
Shaun this is off topic but don't you think Steven seagal in his his early films looked very similar too a young Gregory peck? There colouring is identical as well
Shaun this is off topic but don't you think Steven seagal in his his early films looked very similar too a young Gregory peck? There colouring is identical as well
James said on 28/Oct/12
no timberlake ain't under 6ft
no timberlake ain't under 6ft
Mathew said on 26/Oct/12
Timberlake is more a 5'11.5" than 6'0".
Timberlake is more a 5'11.5" than 6'0".
Van said on 26/Oct/12
Clint was a legitimate 6'3.5-6'4 in hid prime. He's now closer to 6'1.5.
Clint was a legitimate 6'3.5-6'4 in hid prime. He's now closer to 6'1.5.
James said on 22/Oct/12
I think Timberlake is around 183-184cm range like Clint Eastwood.
I think Timberlake is around 183-184cm range like Clint Eastwood.
James said on 22/Oct/12
Timberlake is the 6ft
Timberlake is the 6ft
Shaun said on 21/Oct/12
Rob, are you sure Eastwood only has half an inch on Timberlake? Looks nearer 2 inches to me. There is a chance Timberlake is 5 ft 11 and Eastwood is near 6 ft 1 if standing straight.
Rob, are you sure Eastwood only has half an inch on Timberlake? Looks nearer 2 inches to me. There is a chance Timberlake is 5 ft 11 and Eastwood is near 6 ft 1 if standing straight.
James said on 20/Oct/12
Edgar Hudson was slightly taller than Clint Eastwood in Eiger sanction
Edgar Hudson was slightly taller than Clint Eastwood in Eiger sanction
EdgarHernandez said on 19/Oct/12
clint eastwood has work in his posture lately:
Click Here
Click Here
clint also has the "E.T. neck", just by bending his neck he can lost alot of height. In this pics he looks between 3 to 4 inches taller than justin timberlake, a guy who i put between 6ft and 5ft 11.
Click Here
Click Here
clint is looking very healty, looks like he improved his posture and lost maybe 10 pounds(he wasn't fat but he was quite wider a cuple of years ago.)
i admit, he looks taller for this.
in gettyimages have appear new photos of clint in his younth, and he surely looks like a thin(but fit) 6f 4:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
looking the pictures i agree with something, clint bone structure was of a narrow shoulder guy, clint had to work hard to make the ilusion of broad shoulders
clint eastwood has work in his posture lately:
Click Here
Click Here
clint also has the "E.T. neck", just by bending his neck he can lost alot of height. In this pics he looks between 3 to 4 inches taller than justin timberlake, a guy who i put between 6ft and 5ft 11.
Click Here
Click Here
clint is looking very healty, looks like he improved his posture and lost maybe 10 pounds(he wasn't fat but he was quite wider a cuple of years ago.)
i admit, he looks taller for this.
in gettyimages have appear new photos of clint in his younth, and he surely looks like a thin(but fit) 6f 4:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
looking the pictures i agree with something, clint bone structure was of a narrow shoulder guy, clint had to work hard to make the ilusion of broad shoulders
bs said on 15/Oct/12
It doesn't matter about the hair or the height:) You have to have more going than that!
It doesn't matter about the hair or the height:) You have to have more going than that!
Silent d said on 12/Oct/12
He is definitely not 6 foot 4 now. Back problems and brittle bones stunted his growth now. I only can see him as 184cm now. I think he was 6 foot 4 in his really old movies pre 1985.
He is definitely not 6 foot 4 now. Back problems and brittle bones stunted his growth now. I only can see him as 184cm now. I think he was 6 foot 4 in his really old movies pre 1985.
James said on 12/Oct/12
Geez what is it about bald men being the most attractive lol we have Connery, Beckham and bruce willis etc who could score more women than guys like lionel messi, Hugh grant or tom cruise hands down. Guess times are changing.
Geez what is it about bald men being the most attractive lol we have Connery, Beckham and bruce willis etc who could score more women than guys like lionel messi, Hugh grant or tom cruise hands down. Guess times are changing.
James said on 12/Oct/12
Shaun says on 12/Oct/12
nah, I think'll he's be a bald fella and look more like Connery does now, although vanity might make him go down the hair treatment route..
someone mentioned that clint eastwood wore like a bit of a hairpeace in play misty for me :)
Shaun says on 12/Oct/12
nah, I think'll he's be a bald fella and look more like Connery does now, although vanity might make him go down the hair treatment route..
someone mentioned that clint eastwood wore like a bit of a hairpeace in play misty for me :)
Shaun said on 12/Oct/12
nah, I think'll he's be a bald fella and look more like Connery does now, although vanity might make him go down the hair treatment route..
nah, I think'll he's be a bald fella and look more like Connery does now, although vanity might make him go down the hair treatment route..
James said on 11/Oct/12
Shaun do u think David will look like how 80 year old clint does today when he reaches 80?
Shaun do u think David will look like how 80 year old clint does today when he reaches 80?
Shaun said on 11/Oct/12
Click Here
Beckham has perfected the Eastwood squint LOL. If Beckham dressed in Eastwood's dollars clothes with hat the resemblance would shock people. But look at his appearance now compared to the early curtains day of Man United.... He's clearly spent an awful lot on improving his appearance.
Click Here
Beckham has perfected the Eastwood squint LOL. If Beckham dressed in Eastwood's dollars clothes with hat the resemblance would shock people. But look at his appearance now compared to the early curtains day of Man United.... He's clearly spent an awful lot on improving his appearance.
Legit 6 footer said on 10/Oct/12
Ok Shaun it's me Brad and I'll admit you do raise a point on Camera angles, and I think Connery may have been 6'1 3/4" by that time. I firmly stand by that Eastwood was a clear and strong 6'4" in his prime. Maybe even rose to 6'4 1/2" fresh out of bed.
Ok Shaun it's me Brad and I'll admit you do raise a point on Camera angles, and I think Connery may have been 6'1 3/4" by that time. I firmly stand by that Eastwood was a clear and strong 6'4" in his prime. Maybe even rose to 6'4 1/2" fresh out of bed.
James said on 10/Oct/12
Clint Eastwood shrinking from 193cm too 191cm between 1973-1975 is not impossible since you can actually ever so slightly shrink in height in your 30s. Osteoporosis really can rob you of height rapidly.
I think maybe Clint started too look shorter than 6'4 in thunderbolt and Lightfoot. By 1994 was looking no taller than 6'2 (188cm)
Some will argue 6'3 for him in the 90s but in pics with 194cm neeson and 188-189cm Morgan freeman looked less than 191cm.
Clint Eastwood shrinking from 193cm too 191cm between 1973-1975 is not impossible since you can actually ever so slightly shrink in height in your 30s. Osteoporosis really can rob you of height rapidly.
I think maybe Clint started too look shorter than 6'4 in thunderbolt and Lightfoot. By 1994 was looking no taller than 6'2 (188cm)
Some will argue 6'3 for him in the 90s but in pics with 194cm neeson and 188-189cm Morgan freeman looked less than 191cm.
James said on 10/Oct/12
Shaun yeah I thought Clint looked 6'3 range in city heat.
Still though I certain that Hudson had 1 inch on Clint in Eiger sanction
Shaun yeah I thought Clint looked 6'3 range in city heat.
Still though I certain that Hudson had 1 inch on Clint in Eiger sanction
Shaun said on 10/Oct/12
I watched City Heat last night, full film is on youtube James. Burt Reynolds only looked 3-4 inches shorter than Eastwood in it but I suspect he was wearing lifts. A running gag in the film was Eastwood calling him "shorty", he makes a joke of Reynold's height early on and at the end Reynolds goes on tiptoes purposefully when Eastwood calls him shorty and he wasn't far off Eastwood's height on tip toes in lifts. Reynolds wasn't short at all around 5 ft 11 I think but I think the fact he was known to be very height conscious was why that gag was put into the film.
I watched City Heat last night, full film is on youtube James. Burt Reynolds only looked 3-4 inches shorter than Eastwood in it but I suspect he was wearing lifts. A running gag in the film was Eastwood calling him "shorty", he makes a joke of Reynold's height early on and at the end Reynolds goes on tiptoes purposefully when Eastwood calls him shorty and he wasn't far off Eastwood's height on tip toes in lifts. Reynolds wasn't short at all around 5 ft 11 I think but I think the fact he was known to be very height conscious was why that gag was put into the film.
jfm said on 9/Oct/12
I met Clint back in 2002 when he was in Boston filming the movie "Mystic River". I'm 6'4" and he was at least two inches shorter than me. Clint has slouched shoulders. I'd put him at a 6'1 1/2" now and probably 6'3" in his prime. Clint was friendly to me.
I met Clint back in 2002 when he was in Boston filming the movie "Mystic River". I'm 6'4" and he was at least two inches shorter than me. Clint has slouched shoulders. I'd put him at a 6'1 1/2" now and probably 6'3" in his prime. Clint was friendly to me.
James said on 8/Oct/12
He must be going crazy if he claimed 6'4 at age 73. Maybe he was simply stating his peak height. In his youth probably measured 6'3.75 after a long day.
Still watch Eiger sanction and you will see that Kennedy is taller than clint. The only way Clint looked 6'4 in comaprison would be if Kennedy was 6'5. The scene I am reffering too in the film is when they meet the European rock climbers for the first time... one of the rock climbers If I remember had several inches Clint Eastwood.
He must be going crazy if he claimed 6'4 at age 73. Maybe he was simply stating his peak height. In his youth probably measured 6'3.75 after a long day.
Still watch Eiger sanction and you will see that Kennedy is taller than clint. The only way Clint looked 6'4 in comaprison would be if Kennedy was 6'5. The scene I am reffering too in the film is when they meet the European rock climbers for the first time... one of the rock climbers If I remember had several inches Clint Eastwood.
James said on 8/Oct/12
Shaun says on 7/Oct/12
Are any of certain of heights listed on here? No. But he has 6'1.5" written down on his publicity card and Eastwood had 6'4" which in all honesty I think he looked most of the time. Don't start the 189cm tops trolling again James...
When did i say he was 189cm tops? if remember right you were the one that hinted he might be 189cm since he his waxwork was measured at 197cm
Shaun says on 22/Sep/12
Click Here
I believe that's the waxwork which somebody said measures 6'5.5. Not sure if that's with the hat too, but he isn't standing fully straight his legs are apart. I suppose in boots and hat you'd expect him to be at least 6 ft 7. This doesn't diminish the Clint was 6'2.5" does it though, in fact it strengthens that argument!
Shaun says on 7/Oct/12
Are any of certain of heights listed on here? No. But he has 6'1.5" written down on his publicity card and Eastwood had 6'4" which in all honesty I think he looked most of the time. Don't start the 189cm tops trolling again James...
When did i say he was 189cm tops? if remember right you were the one that hinted he might be 189cm since he his waxwork was measured at 197cm
Shaun says on 22/Sep/12
Click Here
I believe that's the waxwork which somebody said measures 6'5.5. Not sure if that's with the hat too, but he isn't standing fully straight his legs are apart. I suppose in boots and hat you'd expect him to be at least 6 ft 7. This doesn't diminish the Clint was 6'2.5" does it though, in fact it strengthens that argument!
Willy said on 7/Oct/12
If Eastwood states 6'4'' at the age of 73, when he already began struggling with 6'2'', then I'm beginning to wonder if he ever was 6'4'' to begin with. In any case, I just rewatched For A Few Dollars More and would have expected Clint to look 6'5'' in his cowboy boots and also noticeably taller than 6'2'' Lee Van Cleef, but both wasn't the case. He seemed to have an inch on Van Cleef and looked about 6'4'' in his footwear to me. Both would indicate 6'3'' as barefoot peak height.
If Eastwood states 6'4'' at the age of 73, when he already began struggling with 6'2'', then I'm beginning to wonder if he ever was 6'4'' to begin with. In any case, I just rewatched For A Few Dollars More and would have expected Clint to look 6'5'' in his cowboy boots and also noticeably taller than 6'2'' Lee Van Cleef, but both wasn't the case. He seemed to have an inch on Van Cleef and looked about 6'4'' in his footwear to me. Both would indicate 6'3'' as barefoot peak height.
Shaun said on 7/Oct/12
Click Here
Eastwood at the age of 25 in 1955. Looks pretty towering and look at his posture.
Click Here
Eastwood at the age of 25 in 1955. Looks pretty towering and look at his posture.
Shaun said on 7/Oct/12
It would be good to enbody a 6'8"-7'2 guy for a day to two and see what's like but the thought of having to cart around a body that big for life would be a nightmare I've sure. 6 ft 5 is the tallest I'd ever want to be and even that's pushing it.
It would be good to enbody a 6'8"-7'2 guy for a day to two and see what's like but the thought of having to cart around a body that big for life would be a nightmare I've sure. 6 ft 5 is the tallest I'd ever want to be and even that's pushing it.
Shaun said on 7/Oct/12
Are any of certain of heights listed on here? No. But he has 6'1.5" written down on his publicity card and Eastwood had 6'4" which in all honesty I think he looked most of the time. Don't start the 189cm tops trolling again James...
Are any of certain of heights listed on here? No. But he has 6'1.5" written down on his publicity card and Eastwood had 6'4" which in all honesty I think he looked most of the time. Don't start the 189cm tops trolling again James...
James said on 5/Oct/12
When u see this guy in rawhide he looks normal in stature NEVER would I have imagined he was 6'4. In play Misty for he looked 193cm for sure though like a very tall man. In films like fistful of dollars and good bad and ugly looked 189cm. Maybe it was the way these were shot or something?
Shaun what makes u so sure the black guy was 6'1.5?
When u see this guy in rawhide he looks normal in stature NEVER would I have imagined he was 6'4. In play Misty for he looked 193cm for sure though like a very tall man. In films like fistful of dollars and good bad and ugly looked 189cm. Maybe it was the way these were shot or something?
Shaun what makes u so sure the black guy was 6'1.5?
James said on 5/Oct/12
Nope I remember Kennedy had a noticible edge on Eastwood. But was Clint wearing low cut shoes in the scenes they shared
Nope I remember Kennedy had a noticible edge on Eastwood. But was Clint wearing low cut shoes in the scenes they shared
Chris Robinson said on 4/Oct/12
I am firmly of the belief that Eastwood was in the 6 4" range in his youth. He was quoted early on as having trouble finding parts because of his height. Watch the good The bad and the Ugly - there's a scene where a long line of men is being taken to the prison - eastwood towers over everyone. His reduction in recent years is not surprising because of his age and posture.
I am firmly of the belief that Eastwood was in the 6 4" range in his youth. He was quoted early on as having trouble finding parts because of his height. Watch the good The bad and the Ugly - there's a scene where a long line of men is being taken to the prison - eastwood towers over everyone. His reduction in recent years is not surprising because of his age and posture.
night crawler said on 4/Oct/12
lol sorry guys the old james is back.
shaun did you see the youtube video i posted?
lol sorry guys the old james is back.
shaun did you see the youtube video i posted?
Shaun said on 3/Oct/12
Night Crawler is James right? 6 ft 7, what's this? Go back to your old name, Night Crawler sucks. I thought they looked the same height range, I saw it recently actually. Clint still look ed 6 ft 4 in Escape from Alcatraz next to the 6'1.5" black guy in the library so no, he didn't begin losing height at 45.
Night Crawler is James right? 6 ft 7, what's this? Go back to your old name, Night Crawler sucks. I thought they looked the same height range, I saw it recently actually. Clint still look ed 6 ft 4 in Escape from Alcatraz next to the 6'1.5" black guy in the library so no, he didn't begin losing height at 45.
night crawler said on 3/Oct/12
Sorry rob lol I have a habit of being a bit of a troll sometimes. I also forgot that my new nexus 7 I pad has my Original IP address. My Bad :(
Lol 6ft7 I wish. I am only roughly 5ft10
Editor Rob
Sorry rob lol I have a habit of being a bit of a troll sometimes. I also forgot that my new nexus 7 I pad has my Original IP address. My Bad :(
Lol 6ft7 I wish. I am only roughly 5ft10
Editor Rob well why not just limit some of the trolling.
night crawler said on 3/Oct/12
he seemed tall even as a kid
shaun go too 4:41 in this youtube video
Click Here
Doesn't he look like the spitting image of david beckham when he was a child? Even down too the squinty eyes and smile lol.
Editor Rob
he seemed tall even as a kid
shaun go too 4:41 in this youtube video
Click Here
Doesn't he look like the spitting image of david beckham when he was a child? Even down too the squinty eyes and smile lol.
Editor Rob are you going to stick with this new superhero persona? Of course I deleted your other post about being 6ft 7 though, that was a bit daft!
night crawler said on 2/Oct/12
Has anyone seen Eiger sanction? Clint Eastwood looked shorter than George Kennedy in that film. Take into account as well that that George was 50 by 1975. Even with his high hairstyle he looked only 6'3 in comparison and 6'2-6'3 if he had a flatter hairstyle.
I think clints loss of height must have started between 1974-1975
Has anyone seen Eiger sanction? Clint Eastwood looked shorter than George Kennedy in that film. Take into account as well that that George was 50 by 1975. Even with his high hairstyle he looked only 6'3 in comparison and 6'2-6'3 if he had a flatter hairstyle.
I think clints loss of height must have started between 1974-1975
Shaun said on 2/Oct/12
night crawler says on 26/Sep/12
Well too me he certainly did not look over 194cm in coogans bluff and he had on some big heels in that film
Can I comment as well that a young Clint Eastwood resembled David Beckham or am I just crazy?
Is that James? Yes David Beckham as times does resemble a young Clint, but I think that's intentional, he's clearly heavily influenced by Eastwood, James Dean and Steve McQueen, he's even perfected the squint.
night crawler says on 26/Sep/12
Well too me he certainly did not look over 194cm in coogans bluff and he had on some big heels in that film
Can I comment as well that a young Clint Eastwood resembled David Beckham or am I just crazy?
Is that James? Yes David Beckham as times does resemble a young Clint, but I think that's intentional, he's clearly heavily influenced by Eastwood, James Dean and Steve McQueen, he's even perfected the squint.
SteveB said on 1/Oct/12
Never struck me as a solid 6'4" guy. I'd say 6'3" max.
Never struck me as a solid 6'4" guy. I'd say 6'3" max.
Liam said on 29/Sep/12
He looked about 6 foot 6 in Any which way you can.
He looked about 6 foot 6 in Any which way you can.
Henrik said on 29/Sep/12
Very long legs indeed, Shaun.
Very long legs indeed, Shaun.
Shaun said on 27/Sep/12
Click Here
Look at the size of his legs sitting down. He has the legs of a 6 ft 6 - 6 ft 7 guy for sure.
Click Here
Look at the size of his legs sitting down. He has the legs of a 6 ft 6 - 6 ft 7 guy for sure.
night crawler said on 26/Sep/12
Well too me he certainly did not look over 194cm in coogans bluff and he had on some big heels in that film
Can I comment as well that a young Clint Eastwood resembled David Beckham or am I just crazy?
Well too me he certainly did not look over 194cm in coogans bluff and he had on some big heels in that film
Can I comment as well that a young Clint Eastwood resembled David Beckham or am I just crazy?
Shaun said on 26/Sep/12
Got to me said though that there's not many guys who can make Eastwood seem average appearance/masculinity in photographs, Connery looks a much a stronger, more virile man in those pics doesn't he.
Got to me said though that there's not many guys who can make Eastwood seem average appearance/masculinity in photographs, Connery looks a much a stronger, more virile man in those pics doesn't he.
Shaun said on 26/Sep/12
Well Brad Sutherland had an easy two inches on Connery in Great Train Robbery and Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Clint had shrunk to 6'3" ish by 1990 and his posture as usually is slumped, plus he's facing the camera and Eastwood is at the side. On screen Eastwood looked 2 inches taller than Connery in my opinion.
Well Brad Sutherland had an easy two inches on Connery in Great Train Robbery and Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Clint had shrunk to 6'3" ish by 1990 and his posture as usually is slumped, plus he's facing the camera and Eastwood is at the side. On screen Eastwood looked 2 inches taller than Connery in my opinion.
Brad said on 23/Sep/12
In the pic below he looked 6'3" next to the 6'2 1/2" Connery.
In the pic below he looked 6'3" next to the 6'2 1/2" Connery.
Silent d said on 22/Sep/12
He is clearly a little taller than timberlake who is at least 182cm. 184cm for eastwood is right.
He is clearly a little taller than timberlake who is at least 182cm. 184cm for eastwood is right.
Shaun said on 22/Sep/12
Click Here
I believe that's the waxwork which somebody said measures 6'5.5. Not sure if that's with the hat too, but he isn't standing fully straight his legs are apart. I suppose in boots and hat you'd expect him to be at least 6 ft 7. This doesn't diminish the Clint was 6'2.5" does it though, in fact it strengthens that argument!
Click Here
I believe that's the waxwork which somebody said measures 6'5.5. Not sure if that's with the hat too, but he isn't standing fully straight his legs are apart. I suppose in boots and hat you'd expect him to be at least 6 ft 7. This doesn't diminish the Clint was 6'2.5" does it though, in fact it strengthens that argument!
Shaun said on 22/Sep/12
Yes, I myself was surprised to see Clint was 6 ft 4 at one time but I'd never particularly noticed his height and I'd probably have guessed 6 ft 2 once upon a time,. But if you watch his films intently and pay attention in particular to his height in my opinion he did look 6'4"ish. The only thing I ever doubted was that I don't think he ever looked as tall as 6 ft 6 in cowboy boots which are supposed to give 1.5-2 inches. He looked 6'4"-6'5" in boots in the dollars trilogy for instance. However I believe at the Cinecitta Studios in Rome they measured him up and a waxwork was produced of him at the time and its now in some CA museum and I think somebody said the statue is 6'5.5" in boots or something but I think that was also with hat.
Yes, I myself was surprised to see Clint was 6 ft 4 at one time but I'd never particularly noticed his height and I'd probably have guessed 6 ft 2 once upon a time,. But if you watch his films intently and pay attention in particular to his height in my opinion he did look 6'4"ish. The only thing I ever doubted was that I don't think he ever looked as tall as 6 ft 6 in cowboy boots which are supposed to give 1.5-2 inches. He looked 6'4"-6'5" in boots in the dollars trilogy for instance. However I believe at the Cinecitta Studios in Rome they measured him up and a waxwork was produced of him at the time and its now in some CA museum and I think somebody said the statue is 6'5.5" in boots or something but I think that was also with hat.
Shaun said on 22/Sep/12
I saw The Eiger Sanction again the other night and thought he easily looked same height range as George Kennedy. Its funny how many people think 6 ft 2 for him. To me he always looked lanky range on screen in his films and gave off the impression of a guy around 6 ft 4. You compare how Sean Connery looks to Clint Eastwood on screen and Eastwood makes Connery look a stocky average tall guy in my opinion. He never looked "huge" as such in a way like John Wayne or Rock Hudson did but he always looked rangy and very lanky legged. I think you could argue 6'3.5" but no lower for his peak height.
I saw The Eiger Sanction again the other night and thought he easily looked same height range as George Kennedy. Its funny how many people think 6 ft 2 for him. To me he always looked lanky range on screen in his films and gave off the impression of a guy around 6 ft 4. You compare how Sean Connery looks to Clint Eastwood on screen and Eastwood makes Connery look a stocky average tall guy in my opinion. He never looked "huge" as such in a way like John Wayne or Rock Hudson did but he always looked rangy and very lanky legged. I think you could argue 6'3.5" but no lower for his peak height.
Lenad said on 20/Sep/12
i cant buy anything more than 6'3 peak
i cant buy anything more than 6'3 peak
Bojan said on 19/Sep/12
He has obviously lost a lot of height. Today's height is around 6ft, peak height was maybe 6ft 3. He wasn't more than 1 inch bigger than Lee Van Cleef, who was supposed to be 6ft 2. I would say, 189cm peak, 183 today.
He has obviously lost a lot of height. Today's height is around 6ft, peak height was maybe 6ft 3. He wasn't more than 1 inch bigger than Lee Van Cleef, who was supposed to be 6ft 2. I would say, 189cm peak, 183 today.
magic said on 16/Sep/12
His height has always been given as 6'3'' or 6'4''. I think this is probably correct for his youth to middle age. I think his good looks when young distracted from his sheer size.
His height has always been given as 6'3'' or 6'4''. I think this is probably correct for his youth to middle age. I think his good looks when young distracted from his sheer size.
Jason said on 16/Sep/12
Clint's shorter than John Goodman in his latest movie.
Clint's shorter than John Goodman in his latest movie.
James said on 14/Sep/12
oh yeah and another height comparison pic of connery and clint eastwood
Click Here
oh yeah and another height comparison pic of connery and clint eastwood
Click Here
James said on 14/Sep/12
hey its poster james... remember me?
have not visited this site in ages but anyway this is a one off post just cause i came across some very interesting pics of eastwood from 1990 where he looks not over 6'2. the difference between him and liam neeson as well looks similar too the size difference between him and tim robbins.
Click Here
Click Here
this is the most shocking photo becasue assuming connery was still 6'2 in 1990 )some even say he was measured 6'1 1/2 peak)then clint eastwood looks 6'1 (185cm) compared too connery.
Click Here
More too the point though clearly he looks nowhere near 6'4 let alone 6'3 in these pics from nearly 23 years ago.
hey its poster james... remember me?
have not visited this site in ages but anyway this is a one off post just cause i came across some very interesting pics of eastwood from 1990 where he looks not over 6'2. the difference between him and liam neeson as well looks similar too the size difference between him and tim robbins.
Click Here
Click Here
this is the most shocking photo becasue assuming connery was still 6'2 in 1990 )some even say he was measured 6'1 1/2 peak)then clint eastwood looks 6'1 (185cm) compared too connery.
Click Here
More too the point though clearly he looks nowhere near 6'4 let alone 6'3 in these pics from nearly 23 years ago.
Mr. Kaplan said on 14/Sep/12
Clint was 6'3.5" peak.
Clint was 6'3.5" peak.
zebra said on 13/Sep/12
I met Clint in '08, Denver, CO. He was a quiet, small man about 5'9 or 5'10 and acepted the Congressional Medal of Honor for depicting the military positively in his films. He was soft spoken and had a soft hand shake. Not in character at all.
I met Clint in '08, Denver, CO. He was a quiet, small man about 5'9 or 5'10 and acepted the Congressional Medal of Honor for depicting the military positively in his films. He was soft spoken and had a soft hand shake. Not in character at all.
Shaun said on 12/Sep/12
Did anybody see his speech at the Republican convention recently with the chair thing? For 82 he looks in exceptional health it has to be said. They showed a few side shots of him and I thought he looked at least 6'1 range and still obviously a tall guy.
Did anybody see his speech at the Republican convention recently with the chair thing? For 82 he looks in exceptional health it has to be said. They showed a few side shots of him and I thought he looked at least 6'1 range and still obviously a tall guy.
Cyclosarin said on 9/Sep/12
They have his costumes from heartbreak ridge and gran Torino on display side by side in the Warner Bros tour museum. You can see clearly he lost height by the shoulder levels.
They have his costumes from heartbreak ridge and gran Torino on display side by side in the Warner Bros tour museum. You can see clearly he lost height by the shoulder levels.
mrbobh5344 said on 4/Sep/12
I'm reading "American Rebel" about Eastwood. Of interest is that he is left handed but was 'forced' at school as a child to do more right handed. Look in some of his films and you'll see him throw things as a lefty. Also, the book notes that he was shorter than the character Gill Favor on Rawhide. Fleming was 6'4". I believe it's quite possible Eastwood was just 'close' to 6'4". The book's author did a lot of research and I would think/hope he got the height issue correct. It is a pretty interesting book. Regardless, Eastwood always looked very tall and I could easily buy 6'3"+ in his prime.
I'm reading "American Rebel" about Eastwood. Of interest is that he is left handed but was 'forced' at school as a child to do more right handed. Look in some of his films and you'll see him throw things as a lefty. Also, the book notes that he was shorter than the character Gill Favor on Rawhide. Fleming was 6'4". I believe it's quite possible Eastwood was just 'close' to 6'4". The book's author did a lot of research and I would think/hope he got the height issue correct. It is a pretty interesting book. Regardless, Eastwood always looked very tall and I could easily buy 6'3"+ in his prime.
Henrik said on 2/Sep/12
Len says on 30/Aug/12
I don't think Clint ever looked 6-4, even back in the day.
-----
He could have a tendency of giving a shorter appearance when being alone, which I find quite ironic, since "lanky" people are supposed to look taller than they are according to many. In the Dirty Harry films, I could have thought that he was 6'1".
But he was at least two inches taller than 6'1.5" Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, so he definitely looked around 6'4" in that film. He also edged out 6'2" actors, like Lee Van Cleef (who some argue was closer to 6'3").
Len says on 30/Aug/12
I don't think Clint ever looked 6-4, even back in the day.
-----
He could have a tendency of giving a shorter appearance when being alone, which I find quite ironic, since "lanky" people are supposed to look taller than they are according to many. In the Dirty Harry films, I could have thought that he was 6'1".
But he was at least two inches taller than 6'1.5" Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, so he definitely looked around 6'4" in that film. He also edged out 6'2" actors, like Lee Van Cleef (who some argue was closer to 6'3").
Len said on 30/Aug/12
I don't think Clint ever looked 6-4, even back in the day.
I don't think Clint ever looked 6-4, even back in the day.
matt789 said on 25/Aug/12
my dad met eastwood way back in 1982 i think my dad was about 21 then and was done growing he said that eastwood was two inches taller then him and my dad is 6 ft1 so east wood was a ligitment 6 ft 3 back then
my dad met eastwood way back in 1982 i think my dad was about 21 then and was done growing he said that eastwood was two inches taller then him and my dad is 6 ft1 so east wood was a ligitment 6 ft 3 back then
Shaun said on 24/Aug/12
Of course a half inch difference in theory would not notice on screen, all we can really say is "based on him being 6'4" peak legitimately, he started to look a little shorter in the 80s".
Of course a half inch difference in theory would not notice on screen, all we can really say is "based on him being 6'4" peak legitimately, he started to look a little shorter in the 80s".
Shaun said on 24/Aug/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 22/Aug/12
He may still measure 6"1 if he could stand straight. In Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino he was looking 186-187cm range. His peak height was still debatable. If he was still close to 6"4 in The Dead Pool in 1988 at age 58 then perhaps he could have been a fraction over 6"4 in the 60s and 70s?
6'4.25" Neeson had an inch on him in The Dead Pool and he looked about 6'3" in that film. He was still 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz in 1979 but in Sudden Impact in 1983 he did look a little shorter than previous Dirty Harry movies. Pale Rider he looked to edge out Michael Moriarty who I think is 6'3" so he could have been 6'3.5" by mid 80s.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 22/Aug/12
He may still measure 6"1 if he could stand straight. In Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino he was looking 186-187cm range. His peak height was still debatable. If he was still close to 6"4 in The Dead Pool in 1988 at age 58 then perhaps he could have been a fraction over 6"4 in the 60s and 70s?
6'4.25" Neeson had an inch on him in The Dead Pool and he looked about 6'3" in that film. He was still 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz in 1979 but in Sudden Impact in 1983 he did look a little shorter than previous Dirty Harry movies. Pale Rider he looked to edge out Michael Moriarty who I think is 6'3" so he could have been 6'3.5" by mid 80s.
Mark said on 23/Aug/12
At 5 inches taller than someone, you can see over their head. At 6 inches taller, your "nose" is higher than the top of a guy's head. Of course, no one knows what heights are legit, but there were alot of guys Eastwood worked with, in the 70's and 80's, who were supposedly 5'10 (I'm not spending 3 hours looking them all up again). Never once, if even one of these guys really was 5'10, did Eastwood look a half a foot taller than them. I still go with 6'3 peak, maybe a bit over out of bed and certainly with shoes on.
At 5 inches taller than someone, you can see over their head. At 6 inches taller, your "nose" is higher than the top of a guy's head. Of course, no one knows what heights are legit, but there were alot of guys Eastwood worked with, in the 70's and 80's, who were supposedly 5'10 (I'm not spending 3 hours looking them all up again). Never once, if even one of these guys really was 5'10, did Eastwood look a half a foot taller than them. I still go with 6'3 peak, maybe a bit over out of bed and certainly with shoes on.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Aug/12
He may still measure 6"1 if he could stand straight. In Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino he was looking 186-187cm range. His peak height was still debatable. If he was still close to 6"4 in The Dead Pool in 1988 at age 58 then perhaps he could have been a fraction over 6"4 in the 60s and 70s?
He may still measure 6"1 if he could stand straight. In Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino he was looking 186-187cm range. His peak height was still debatable. If he was still close to 6"4 in The Dead Pool in 1988 at age 58 then perhaps he could have been a fraction over 6"4 in the 60s and 70s?
Shaun said on 20/Aug/12
Musicman says on 16/Aug/12
I was in the door and window business for 10 years and in regard to a door height being 6'6" is incorrect. A door jam is 6'8" tall, the half inch part the door closes against to stop the door is 6'7 and a half inches therefore making a door 6'7 and one quarter inch for an interior door in a house because you have a 1/4 inch between the bottom of the door and the floor with carpet. Not only that but my dad and I met Clint before back in the late 90's. I'm 5'11" in shoes, my dad was 6'2 and a half in shoes and Clint was at least and inch and a half taller than my dad standing straight up side by side. so if you doubt that Clint was ever 6'4", you are wrong, I've met him, he's my favorite actor. because of his upper back problems now he's about 6'2" because he slumps and is older too. 6' one half inch is a joke and just inaccurate, he's not lost 4 inches or even 3, I outta know I've met the man.
Doubtful, whilst I agree on 6'4 peak by late 90s he had definitely lost height. He was looking barely 6'3" mid 90s.
Musicman says on 16/Aug/12
I was in the door and window business for 10 years and in regard to a door height being 6'6" is incorrect. A door jam is 6'8" tall, the half inch part the door closes against to stop the door is 6'7 and a half inches therefore making a door 6'7 and one quarter inch for an interior door in a house because you have a 1/4 inch between the bottom of the door and the floor with carpet. Not only that but my dad and I met Clint before back in the late 90's. I'm 5'11" in shoes, my dad was 6'2 and a half in shoes and Clint was at least and inch and a half taller than my dad standing straight up side by side. so if you doubt that Clint was ever 6'4", you are wrong, I've met him, he's my favorite actor. because of his upper back problems now he's about 6'2" because he slumps and is older too. 6' one half inch is a joke and just inaccurate, he's not lost 4 inches or even 3, I outta know I've met the man.
Doubtful, whilst I agree on 6'4 peak by late 90s he had definitely lost height. He was looking barely 6'3" mid 90s.
Musicman said on 16/Aug/12
I was in the door and window business for 10 years and in regard to a door height being 6'6" is incorrect. A door jam is 6'8" tall, the half inch part the door closes against to stop the door is 6'7 and a half inches therefore making a door 6'7 and one quarter inch for an interior door in a house because you have a 1/4 inch between the bottom of the door and the floor with carpet. Not only that but my dad and I met Clint before back in the late 90's. I'm 5'11" in shoes, my dad was 6'2 and a half in shoes and Clint was at least and inch and a half taller than my dad standing straight up side by side. so if you doubt that Clint was ever 6'4", you are wrong, I've met him, he's my favorite actor. because of his upper back problems now he's about 6'2" because he slumps and is older too. 6' one half inch is a joke and just inaccurate, he's not lost 4 inches or even 3, I outta know I've met the man.
I was in the door and window business for 10 years and in regard to a door height being 6'6" is incorrect. A door jam is 6'8" tall, the half inch part the door closes against to stop the door is 6'7 and a half inches therefore making a door 6'7 and one quarter inch for an interior door in a house because you have a 1/4 inch between the bottom of the door and the floor with carpet. Not only that but my dad and I met Clint before back in the late 90's. I'm 5'11" in shoes, my dad was 6'2 and a half in shoes and Clint was at least and inch and a half taller than my dad standing straight up side by side. so if you doubt that Clint was ever 6'4", you are wrong, I've met him, he's my favorite actor. because of his upper back problems now he's about 6'2" because he slumps and is older too. 6' one half inch is a joke and just inaccurate, he's not lost 4 inches or even 3, I outta know I've met the man.
mcfan said on 14/Aug/12
loss in height is hereditary. ask your genes why you lose height. women will lose more height then men. (exceptions: Lindsey Wagner etc)
loss in height is hereditary. ask your genes why you lose height. women will lose more height then men. (exceptions: Lindsey Wagner etc)
nmod said on 14/Aug/12
@Rob: Thanks a lot.
@Rob: Thanks a lot.
little sue said on 14/Aug/12
Another tip is to keep on your feet a lot, I read the other day that if you spend 5 hours or more a day on your feet it lowers the chances of Osteophoris which is what shortens a lot of heights when you are elderly, especially in women
Another tip is to keep on your feet a lot, I read the other day that if you spend 5 hours or more a day on your feet it lowers the chances of Osteophoris which is what shortens a lot of heights when you are elderly, especially in women
nmod said on 13/Aug/12
@Rob: Some of the over 70's listed on here have only lost 0.5-1 in with age, whereas others like Eastwood have lost over 3 in.
Is there anything that can be done to minimize the loss of height as we age or is it just luck of the draw?
Editor Rob
@Rob: Some of the over 70's listed on here have only lost 0.5-1 in with age, whereas others like Eastwood have lost over 3 in.
Is there anything that can be done to minimize the loss of height as we age or is it just luck of the draw?
Editor Rob here's my tips...
1) avoid being an action star
2) avoid putting too much regular stress on your back through overexertions
3) eat well and ensure you are getting enough minerals, calcium, potassium etc.
4) gentle daily stretching helps with your posture. Avoid the bad habit of slouching and stand upright as much as you can without it hurting - that's were some stretching/strengthening exercises can help you.
1) avoid being an action star
2) avoid putting too much regular stress on your back through overexertions
3) eat well and ensure you are getting enough minerals, calcium, potassium etc.
4) gentle daily stretching helps with your posture. Avoid the bad habit of slouching and stand upright as much as you can without it hurting - that's were some stretching/strengthening exercises can help you.
Mark said on 13/Aug/12
...height, build and muscles aside, I've never seen a film where I'd say Eastwood was broad shouldered. More muscular in some movies, than others, but always quite narrow to me. Being on film adds 10 pounds, if anything, and I've seen Eastwood in those western overcoats "still" looking very slender...shoulders included.
...height, build and muscles aside, I've never seen a film where I'd say Eastwood was broad shouldered. More muscular in some movies, than others, but always quite narrow to me. Being on film adds 10 pounds, if anything, and I've seen Eastwood in those western overcoats "still" looking very slender...shoulders included.
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Denny Miller was the first blonde Tarzan BTW in 1959 in case the name didn't twig. Big guy and much more built than Eastwood but similar proportions and features.
Denny Miller was the first blonde Tarzan BTW in 1959 in case the name didn't twig. Big guy and much more built than Eastwood but similar proportions and features.
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Rob can you start a page for Denny Miller. I saw him in a film the other day and he looked a ringer for Clint Eastwood, a genuine 6'4" and looked very tall and screen. I guessed his height at 6'4" without even checking as you can just tell. He was wearing cowboy boots and must have been 6'6" range in them.
Rob can you start a page for Denny Miller. I saw him in a film the other day and he looked a ringer for Clint Eastwood, a genuine 6'4" and looked very tall and screen. I guessed his height at 6'4" without even checking as you can just tell. He was wearing cowboy boots and must have been 6'6" range in them.
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.