Evan Soloway said on 30/Jul/21
from a 2011 blog post by Ebert called "the incredible shrinking man": "During a routine test of my bone density, a nurse backed me up against a wall and used a built-in device to measure me. 'Five feet, five and a half inches,' she said. If this was true, I had lost two and a half inches."
Ebert claims to have been 5'8, and rob seems to think that's reasonable since 5'7.5 isn't far off, but I have trouble believing it. Ebert was 69 at the time of writing that post. Though he'd been ill for several years with thyroid cancer and was also heavy set likely with back issues, I still believe he didn't shrink anymore than 1.5-1.75 inches. My father was a big guy peaked out at 5'11, now at 71 he's about 5'9.5 and with poor posture he can look shorter but still 1.5 inches shrinkage at absolute most. A lot of older people misjudge how tall they were at their peak and so make a big deal of shrinking "3" or "4" inches when really they were just never that tall (my father claims to have been 6' but I know in fact this isn't true!). Ebert I think topped out at 5'7. great guy of course but no i don't think he was near 5'8.
Sonny Black said on 13/Feb/20
I agree with the other users, give Siskel a page since he was the tall one.
The Shredder said on 16/Nov/17
Rob , can Gene get a page? Looks 6'2
Dingus said on 16/Apr/17
Ebert was about 5'07.50" to 5'08.00". Siskel looked like he could be almost 6'03.00". I'm not sure about Richard Roeper. I think thy all deserve a page though.
Sam said on 6/Jan/15
Love his books The Great Movies.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Jan/15
Any chance of adding Siskel, Rob?
said on 26/Nov/14
Rob, how tall do you think Gene Siskel was?
he could look 6ft 2-3 range
Arch Stanton said on 6/Nov/14
Looked pretty short but a goliath in film criticism. Usually agree with him more often than not.
Sam said on 17/Jul/14
Rob, could you please just list his peak height since he's no longer with us?
Lorne said on 14/Aug/13
You gave Ebert a 5ft7.5in peak, and current 5ft5.5, and he was younger than Mike Douglas! And both had cancer. And I believe they both Lost 2 inches at near 70. Just saying. And RIP Mr Ebert, you we're truly the greatest critic of all time, and had a lasting impact on film...
(s)ain't said on 4/Jan/13
I thought he was around 5'8". He looked like a short fridge.
puffball said on 24/Sep/11
My 6'2 1/2" brother met Gene Siskel at a Chicago golf tournament over 20 years ago. Gene Siskel claimed his height to be 6'3," but in reality, my brother said that Gene was exactly 6'2," a half-inch shorter than my brother. My brother has an eye for height, and yes, Gene in pictures looked six inches taller than Roger Ebert, so Gene at 6'3" wasn't accurate, except for when he had his shoes on.
Six years later, my sister, also with an eye for height, went to see Roger Ebert at a book discussion and said that he was exactly 5'8," not any taller or shorter than he was on TV back in his heyday with Gene Siskel. Due to illness, Ebert may have shrunk an inch or two, but back in the day, we saw Gene as 6'2" and Roger as 5'8."
5'8.56786 said on 25/Jul/11
Ebert might be the record holder for watchint the most movies, but he isn't as brilliant as people make him out to be, some of his critiques are notably flawed.
jake said on 13/Jul/11
jtm, Rudd isn't shorter than 5ft8.5in.
jtm said on 12/Jul/11
he was clearly shorter than 5'7.5 paul rudd in 2003.
Shaun said on 12/Jul/11
This guy is an absolute legend in the cinema world. I swear he holds the world record for watching the most movies. Yeah I saw a pic of him next to Peter o Toole and thought he looked short although Toole is bordering very tall range himself. I'd have guessed he was 5'6" or 5'7".