How tall was Roger Moore - Page 5

Add a Comment1148 comments

Average Guess (167 Votes)
6ft 1.15in (185.8cm)
Viper652 said on 21/Apr/06
No way is Roger Moore only 5-10. Hes at the very least 6-0 in all of the Bond movies. Hell If Roger Moore was only 5-10 he would have never been hired to play Bond. They all had to be at least 6-0.
Lone said on 20/Apr/06
I think roger moore is only 5-10, as is evident in the bond movie mooraker. there was a scene where he was on the spaceship with dr. goodhead looking out and Jaws (richard kiel) came and stood behind them. moore came up to Jaw's chest, if he were taller than 6 feet, he would be at Jaw's shoulder level, and richard kiel is legit 7 feet tall.

connery is probably a legit 6-1. moore is shorter, 5-10 or 5-11 at best.
Picture said on 20/Apr/06
It seems that it's normal that people begin losing height in there 30s, that's at least what my doctor says.
Frank2 said on 13/Apr/06
Somehow I doubt McNee had lost an inch by the time I met him since in 1982 he was only 62, but I suppose it's possible.
Picture said on 13/Apr/06
Macnee did look very tall avengers. 6 ft 1 range, but yes he could of the lifts club. Moore was at least 6 ft 1 at his peak.

Editor Rob
could he have been 5ft11 in his prime? In the second avengers, the Gareth Hunt guy is 6ft (well, lists himself on his resume at that height), so maybe he started to shrink as per Frank2's encounter...scroll down to see him with diana princess

actually, here is McNee with the 6ft Gareth Hunt - you can see there he appears shorter, they probably got lumley to taker shoes off...5ft 6 Twiggy without shoes
Tubbs said on 5/Apr/06
I have evidence that Roger was atleast 6'1.5" when he made the Wild Geese, I just cant find a way of explaining it properly, when I can I will, it takes a bit of mathematical working out, so I will come back when i've done it, all I can say is theat it has something to do with doorways.
Frank2 said on 22/Mar/06
Moore with 5'9" Tony Curtis: Click Here
Gotxo said on 1/Mar/06
The problem with moore is that in addition that he was tall, he was skinny, thin framed (in spite of broad shoulders) and had long limbs (specially the neck) which remarked his height (a powerfull image). In spite of this my guess for his peak height was no more than 185cm.
Mario said on 1/Mar/06
I say that his peak height was 187cm or 6 ft 1.5. I really is the height that he has looked most his carrer
When he said 6 ft 2 he rounded a little up en when he said 6 ft 1 he rounded a little down.
Gotxo said on 28/Feb/06
Nice try Rob, byt that guys height is an unsure one too. If we belive Tim's report he's nowadays below 184cm plus the guy stated himself being 6'1" when young (being the inch and feet so an inaccurate measures, that could mean either 184 or 186cm, appart from 185cm of course).
Anonymous said on 28/Feb/06
What do you reckon he is from that picture with Jackie Rob? Roger is tilting slightly, but Jackie is standing tall, and still comes below Roger's nose, Rog looks taller than a guy who is 5'11, there's atleast 7 inches between the two of them, he still looks 6'1. Any ideas when Glenns' picture with Roger is likely to turn up Rob?

Editor Rob
no, no idea, we were taking a break with pics...

there's a few other shots on getty of jackie and roger

but knowing exactly what Stewart is now...I have seen him described 5ft 5 in Scottish press, but 5ft 6.5 was bandied about in his prime...but he doesn't look that now, if he ever was that height.
Tim said on 27/Feb/06
I met Roger Moore this past weekend in Quebec City (Canada) and he was about an inch shorter than me who stands 6 ft 0.5. So he stands about 5 ft 11.5. He stated his height as 6 ft 1 but that must have been in his prime.
Gotxo said on 21/Feb/06
I think that Glenn's picture/testimony is a way better source.
What you've posted is a promo pic and there a lot of considerations are taken to make the star appear in the best way. I don't rule out 6'2" for him, but to me he never looked that tall (though he was tall) more like 6"+ to 6'1", if hes with anohter stars he can look 6'2", but to me he never looked that compared to Connery (wich is also guy who can look taller than his 6'2").
Tubbs said on 18/Feb/06
I've already posted this, but this backs up Daves' suggestion that there is only an inch between Roger and Yaphett. Goes to show that he was 6'2 at the age of 45. He still can't be much below that now, just waiting for Glenns'picture with him, and Glenn has said himself that Rog was 6'1.
Mario said on 16/Feb/06
Kotto looks 6 ft 4 + in Alien he is an half head taller than Anthony Quinn, ehm.... I that there aren't good scenes to compare Moore with Kotto.
Dave said on 15/Feb/06
Compare Moore next to the 6'3'' Yaphet Kotto in Live and Let Die. Moore is no more than an inch shorter.
Gotxo said on 12/Feb/06
Fenny :
Your dad should get his height checked, maybe Roger was that height when young (i should give him less, though) But since a long time he looked smaller than Connery (who's 6'2"), so either your father got a wrong estimation of Roger height or his own one.
Fenny said on 11/Feb/06
My dad and i went to a charity evening recently and Roger was the guest speaker, my father is 6ft 3 and roger was a shade smaller, but not a great deal shorter, somewhere in the region of 1"-1.5". I think your estimation of this acting legend is too short he's comfortably 6ft 1.5" - 6ft 2"
Dave said on 5/Feb/06
Moore appears 6'2'' in his early Bond films but appears to be down to 6'1'' by the time of A View To a Kill. Nowadys I guess he is between 6' and 6'1''.
Gotxo said on 2/Feb/06
Yeah, i knew that pic tubbs. I've said that i could be wrong, just telling my perception on him. In some films he looks like 6'2" and such, in others 6' to 6'1". Undeniable a tall guy, even for today standards and a guy hard to measure too. I just want to be precise, i bought some dvd's of this guy's films so it shouldn't be a problem at all him proving to be 6'2".
Tubbs said on 2/Feb/06
Roger here with 6'6" Clint Walker from a movie from the late 50's, he looks 6'2 to me here, anyone else think so too?
Mario said on 2/Feb/06
Rob gives Moore's current height, not his peak height. He says in the intro that Moore was in his Saint days 6 ft 2.

There is a Picture somewhere taken in the mid 70s in wich Moore looks an half-inch shorter than Sir Caine.
Gotxo said on 2/Feb/06
The rounding ups are very common, and if a man is near a height plus due to his body frame tend to looks taller than he is, it's all said.
Yes, i cuold give him a bit over 6'1" but not quite a full inch.
Anyway i know i could be wrong, and if proven otherwise i'll have no problem in accepting it. I'll be the #1 to post here that he's over that.
But to be sincere, not deniying the possibility you point out, i still think the 184cm Rob gave him was a extremely cool guessing (give or take a cm).
It's only my opinion, it changes nothing, and we haven't to chip away our brains
as Glenn is close to submit a photo (and to descibe the height thought he had, i hope).
Mario said on 1/Feb/06
Hey Gotxo don't you think that he could have been between those two heights (6 ft 1 and 6 ft 2)? The most man round there height to an inch and maybe Moore rounded his height. He could have been very well 6 ft 1.5 186/ 187 cm.

We are all talking about 1/2 cm of difference between Moore and other guy's and it's pretty difficult to see that. Because maybe is shoes are a little more heeled or maybe his posture. Poeple always seems to forget how important posture is (sometimes thanks to my posture I look in poeple eyes 2 inches shorter!). Moore has a good posture, but he just like every normal person isn't always full straight

The picture of Caine, Connery and Moore wich you mean McFly is from the early 90s, I dunno where that 1983 comes from.

The list wich I posted isn't my opinion, it's the list of some magazine and it's a joke. Your list is also a joke.

Here you can found something simeliar.
Gotxo said on 1/Feb/06
Tubbs & Mario: You've given very good reasons to support your guess at 6'2".
They sound totally logical to me, i don't discard that height for Moore. Anyway, i still give him 6'1". He has been quoted describing his height at both values, so anything is possilbe. Plus he has longer limbs and neck in proportion to his height than average, and bigger hands too. If you add to that the fact of a slightly T shaped body and slim frame, you've a guy that looks taller than really is, wathever his height is (this doesn't rule out 6'2").
Anyway Glenn is close to give us the answer as he has met him and sounds to be a sincere guy. So we can sit down and wait for it.
Mario said on 1/Feb/06
There in one pic in wich Moore looks 2 inches shorter than Connery and Michael Caine, in the other pics he looks 1/2 to 1 inch shorter (and it are pics of the 80s and 90s when those aren't at there full height). You seem also to forget that posture is very important, and if he is slighty humping down he can lose easy 2 inches. Maybe it's time to accept that the man was a legitimate 6 ft 2. He said it by himself, poeple who have met him estimated him as 6 ft 2, he looked 6 ft 2, His CV says 6 ft 2, he comes close to the top of the doors (wich probably 2 meter) and he is tall at 6 ft 1.

The only reason why this man has been listed as 6 ft 1 by some places is because there was article or rumor wich says that every Bond was shorter than is predecessor.

Connery - 6 ft 3
Lazenby - 6 ft 2
Moore - 6 ft 1
Dalton - 6 ft
Brosnan - 5 ft 11.

I don't know were I read this, but it's famous and is probably wroten for a laugh.
Tubbs said on 1/Feb/06
There are many pictures on the net where there is at most half an inch between Sean and Roger when both are standing properly. I'm waiting for a mention of the 'photograph from 1983 with Connery and Caine' where the 6'2 Connery and 6'2 Caine are two inches taller than Rog. That is not a good picture at all as they are not standing straight, and in a pretty relaxed mood. There is plenty of evidence to suggest he is still 6'1". There ain't two inches between them here.
Picture said on 1/Feb/06
Hey Gotxo you are always talking that Moore is 2 inches shorter than Connery, do hate this man or so? Moore was slighty shorter than Connery from what I know man,
Gotxo said on 1/Feb/06
Brett, apart from Jeremy Clarkson there are two more introducers, one of them is terrrible small and the other seems in the small side of average. Moore doesn't seem to have shrunk very much, but he always been a near 2" smaller than connery and being still 6'0" implies no shrunkment at all, wich being possible is still very odd.
Brett said on 29/Jan/06
good to see Vipers gone too, no more small man syndrome based comments. I saw Moore on top gear ( english car show) and he towered the presenter who wasnt all that small, so I do think the guy is still 6'0" plus , anything under 6ft is laughable
Tubbs said on 28/Jan/06
I see that McFly's comments are being removed - no surprise really, i think the comment that Michael Caine was the same height as the 5'7.5" Elton John may have lost him any small amount of credibility that he had.
Gotxo said on 19/Jan/06
The guy himself stated that he was 6'1" when he started on the filmaking bussiness

To me he never looked over that (wiht minor exceptions). What's the problem with it? He was huge for his generation and even still today that mark is the one of a tall guy. People has not to be perfect as film depict. I should never have better opion on Roger would he be an inch taller than i'd imagined.
Mario said on 16/Jan/06
It's funny that a lot of the current stars are so short (Farrel, Cruise, Phoenix etc) and that the stars of the 60s and 70s (Moore, Connery, Hackman, Beatty etc)were tall. A 6 ft 2 guy at that time is the same as a 6 ft 4 guy today.
andrew said on 15/Jan/06
Yeah, I think exactly the same, but nowadays he has shrunk to my 5'11". By the way my father was born in 1945.
Gotxo said on 14/Jan/06
Andrew: Then both your father and Moore were quite tall for their generations, and it's still tall.
andrew said on 14/Jan/06
My father moved to Paris in 1967 and he saw Moore those days. My father was 6'1" that time and he says Moore was exactly the same height. That's not a bad height for Moore at the age of 40.
tomking said on 12/Jan/06
Correct Rob. Roger Moore was often in Switzerland and today he is 183cm without shoes not more.
Brett said on 9/Jan/06
viper Im hardly embarassing myself, the only person who is not taken seriously is yourself, you downgrade the world. Everyone argued with glenn that keanu reeves was not 6'1" until he put up a photo proving his point, and as he said most people here are completely full of it and are simply jealous of these celebs. Why bother arguing with those who have met celebrities viper, Ive met brosnan, what a stubborn person you must be to still be arguing over it, the only person embarassing themselves is you. Only an idiot argues a case they really know nothing about, 5'11" is laughable, and if you had met him you would see why, please god you one day do so can see how wrong you are.
Mario said on 6/Jan/06
I have Connery's peak height at 6 ft 2.5. ;)
In the most pictures that he has with Caine and Connery he looks 1 inch smaller, but it are mostly pictures of the end of the 80s and 90s, when Moore and the others probably also wheren't at there peak height.
Gotxo said on 5/Jan/06
Mario, i don't understand your comment, i like Moore, his films & personality, and he has a great heart too, but c'mon he's far away from being humble.
I never gave him less than 6' and belived him to be around 6'1" when young (read my latest comments before rob's last comment) not 6'2" as you. A thing i can't explain to myself since you've Connery as 6'2" (as me) but Moore always looked near 2" smaller.
Mario said on 5/Jan/06
I think that Brosnan's posture isn't good in that picture.

@Gotxo, Moore is an honest guy, trust him.
Tubbs said on 4/Jan/06
Is it just me, or is Roger taller than the 6'1.5 Pierce Brosnan? What d'ya reckon guys?
Gramps said on 1/Jan/06
I saw Roger Moore alongside the 6'5" Christopher Lee in a James Bond flick over the weekend (one of those 007 marathons). Although Moore looked all of 6'2" throughout most of the movie (I was especially watching for this), he looked at LEAST five inches shorter than Lee. I actually thought Lee looked 6'6" in this movie, so who knows. I suspect 6'1" may be right for Moore. As I said, throughout the movie he did indeed look about 6'2".
CelebHeights Editor said on 26/Dec/05
His daughter Deborah Moore is 5ft 10. She was in a film with Rob Lowe and was just about his height.
Viper652 said on 25/Dec/05
Roger was always 6-0 even. Case closed
Gotxo said on 25/Dec/05
What in the hell is 6ft lins? Does it mean 6ft and change? Can any Britt translate it in a more standard english?

Editor Rob
It is Six foot one inch)
CelebHeights Editor said on 25/Dec/05
From Moore's own website, there's a transcription of a 2004 Daily Mail article with this quote: "I have mainly played heroes, which is a talent in itself as I am anything but a hero. But I do look like one. When I started out, I was 6ft lins tall with a straight nose and blue eyes".
Gotxo said on 20/Dec/05
Klaus most of people lie in their CVs,why it should be an exception for the stars.
I belive him 6'1" when young, but he could look anything from 6' to 6'2". Anyway he always looked smaller than Connery, who was indeed 6'2"
Mr. Klaus said on 20/Dec/05
Moore doesn't wear lifts, he appears at least barefoot in some of his movies next to villians and the lady's Brett. His CV says 6 ft 2, so why is there still poeple discussing about his height?
Viper652 said on 18/Dec/05
Brett, why do you find it impossible??? Come on man, give it up. Your just emberrassing yourself
Viper652 said on 18/Dec/05
Mr. Klaus, I dont downgrade every celeb. But a lot of them should be. Most of the picture evidence shows that Brosnan is in the 6-0 range.
Brett said on 16/Dec/05
5'11" (180cm) is an impossibility, you would understand this if you had ever seen the man, as for listings of 5'11", I find that impossible to believe. As Ive said I have met solid 6'2-3" actors like Hugh Jackman and Eric Bana, and I did not notice a difference between Brosnan and them. I suppose you guys can believe what you like, but I can say one thing, I havent seen Rob comment on here or the Brosnan page in a while, probably due to the fact that there is so much factless nonsense posted in here of late.
Mr. Klaus said on 15/Dec/05
Of course there are a lot of Celebs inflated, the most celebs are little less shorter listed on celebheights than what they are ussualy listed, and the funny thing is that Viper tries to downgrade every celeb, to feel himself better.

John said on 13/Dec/05
The picture with Moore in 1996 proves Brosnan is 6'0.5 maximum. 5'11 is what he was listed as when he started out, we know he knocked two years off his age and was actually born in 1951, so why wouldn't he wear lifts and lie about his height as well? Definitely 5'11 max.
Tubbs said on 12/Dec/05
Pictures here to suggest Rog was 6'2", first one is with 6'3" Kotto,about 1 inch in it.
Second one with 6'2 Lee Marvin
third picture Roger towers over his co-star,
He may not be 6'2 these days, but the pictures suggest he was in the past. I reckon he is probably 6'1, as he has kept great posture, and believe it or not, despite being 78 he still keep himself fit my working out, and not letting his body seize up. As for Brosnan, he is probably 6'2 himself, there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.
Mr. Klaus said on 12/Dec/05
What does it matter that some idiots say that he is 5 ft 11? Does he look that? the answer is no. Everyones IQ who is above 80 know that he is at least 6 ft 1, probably 6 ft 2. There are poeple who say that he suddenly grown when he becomed Bond, those poeple really don't know noting. Pierce looked 4 inches taller than Patrick Swayze, he was slighty taller than Caine, 2 inches shorter than Christopher Lee in his pre-Bond carreer. Viper, the only thing that you do on this site is downgrading celebs(Stallone 5 ft 7, hahaha).
Viper652 said on 11/Dec/05
Brett, some people on here have said Brosnan was listed at 5-11 when he first started out. There is a slight possibility that its his real barefoot height. You sound arrogant and condescending whenever somebody brings up a valid opinion. Get a grip dude
Mario Nariano said on 10/Dec/05
John, show me a picture in wich Brosnan looks 5 ft 11?
John said on 10/Dec/05
He's still taller than the 5'11" Brosnan.
Brett said on 10/Dec/05
If Moore claimed to be 6'2" in his youth, then theres no reason to doubt that,and I personally wouldnt rule it out. When I mean youth I mean in his 20's-30's, but as of right now, I dont think he is this tall. I suppose you couldnt rule out the idea of him being near 6'1" now though.
Brett said on 8/Dec/05
I dont think Brosnans 4 inches taller haha, although he may look it in that photo, but he is with out a doubt taller. Im just saying the gap is way too big for anyone to think Moore could be as tall as him. Mcfly, seriously the infatuation idea is old and sad, I wont suggest you have a thing going for sexy old Elton.
Mario Nariano said on 8/Dec/05
Of course Moore is the shortest Bond at this moment but back then in 95' he was as tall or taller than Brosnan I think. Brosnan and Moore. Watch the picture good, and you will notice that Moore isn't full straight.

I think that he looks an inch shorter than Dalton? What do you think guys?
Tubbs said on 8/Dec/05
To be honest, it's hard to tell, I do think that Dalton is the tallest, but it is a shot from below, so makes it hard to judge differences in height.
Mario Nariano said on 8/Dec/05
I found the picture!
Tubbs said on 8/Dec/05
Maybe Brett, when you met Brosnan he was taller than you by an inch, or it seemed as though he was, my bet is that if you were to ever meet him again, you would probably be the same, or feel taller than him. This happens a lot with me and the people I know, due to posture and slouching etc. Also that picture of all the Bonds minus Connery, its hard to tell if they are all the same distance from the camera, as they are all in black, but to think that Brosnan is like 4 inches taller the Rog, come on.
Mario Nariano said on 8/Dec/05
Brett, Brosnan and Dalton are closer to the camera, this why they look taller than the others. There is a better picture of Dalton, Lazenby and Moore in wich Moore looks an inch shorter than the two others and Lazenby and Dalton look the same height, i can't find the picture but I think that Rob knows wich pic i mean.

Then again we have pictures in wich Moore looks about the same height as Pierce or taller than Brosnan. This indicates that Moore and Brosnan are 6 ft 1 and Dalton and Lazenby where 6 ft 2 in those pictures.
Gotxo said on 7/Dec/05
Very good pic Mario, as Brosnan is closer to the camera he looks the same height as Moore or depicably taller. But it seems to look as if was not that but the opposite in reality. I'm messed, the pic Brett posted of Bronsan with caine was interesting too. By saying Moore is under 6' i'm stating my humble opinion i asume i could be wrong. Keep your job with posts like these is better than insulting people as is getting as a trend here. ;)
Mario Nariano said on 7/Dec/05
Gotxo You think that Moore under 6 ft nowedays?
I can't find any picture on the net i wich Moore looks under 6 ft nowedays.
I think that Rob is right about Moore current height.

BTW: in 1995 Moore was slighty taller than Brosnan.
Gotxo said on 7/Dec/05
This is not the temple of truth Brett. Everyone has the right to post his opinions, even if they are as clearly slanted and absurd as McFly's ones.
The biggest fun here are the guessings people do and to decide why they sound right or wrong. I take a lot of fun of it. Let's avoid the insult.
BTW to me moore looked 6'1 at best, don't think he's a full 6'0" nowadays.
Brett said on 7/Dec/05
Mcfly would Argue that Caine is hardly taller then Danny Devito, hes just a sad little man who can't see over the steering wheel, and is commonly mistaken by women in bars for an arm rest, you should just wear a cushion on your head and charge a fee for such a service, you could make some money out it . I have no doubt that caine is 6'1" plus, as he had an inch plus on Chris Bale in Batman, and Bale is 6'0", so by saying hes hardly taller then Elton John, you clearly have no clue, and should be Banned from this site, along with the other idiots who are simply out to downgrade everyone. According to McFly, Michael Caine is 5'8" or 5'9", which Makes Roger Moore roughly the same? do you feel better now Mcfly?, do you feel bigger?, or more manly? ( you should just feel stupid) , what you really should be doing is going to a psychologist so you can work through your inferiority complex. Mcfly, please go away.
Tubbs said on 6/Dec/05
Were you there McFly? You seem to have no evidence to back up whatever you say.
Anonymous said on 5/Dec/05
I can not speak about Roger Moore's height but I saw Michael Caine having dinner at a restraunt while I was in London and hes GOT TO be right around 6'1!
Tubbs said on 5/Dec/05
Rog looks the same height as Caine here, the photo is only a couple of years old. If Caine has shrunk down from 6'2 to 6'1.25, Rog has got to be 6'1. There aren't any pictures that I could find of Connery and Moore from the last 15 years from what I can see, so we'll just have to use Caine as a judge for Roger's height.

Editor Rob
I think Caine has lost a little bit, but not that much...there's another pic from 2004 and there's not much. There's some other pics from that event but harder to judge
Gotxo said on 3/Dec/05
Maybe Moore was taller than i'd imagine. But 6'2" seems excessive, especially compared to Connery. I could be wrong though and i'll hear gladly opposing opinions. Nevertheless many pics can be deceptive, the german uniform he wears might add some height due to boots.And as i stated before close shots are the moment used to even heights. Check this one, the height gap between both has been leveled in Niven's favour (never trust that kind of shots):
1104683792_escape_to_athena-03.jpg (JPEG Irudia, 720x405 pixel)
Anonymous said on 2/Dec/05
Ok, he can look closer to 6'2" here. But it's nearer to the camera and Niven is very aged (thoug he always looked tall)
Hmm who knows, what do you think guys?
Brett said on 2/Dec/05
Its funny how in some photos Moore is larger then Caine, and in others, Caine is larger then moore. Here are a few examples....
these two show Caine to be larger then Moore

While this one shows the reverse

I think this shows how unreliable photos can be.
Glenn said on 1/Dec/05
I met him.he's 6-1.
Tubbs said on 1/Dec/05
I see where your coming from Rob. Harris does have a bit of a slouch goin' on the movie. One thing that did surprise me was that Burton looked quite tall, do you think he may have worn lifts, with him being the biggest star in the movie, he wouldn't want to be towered over by Roger and Harris, what do you think?
Mario Nariano said on 1/Dec/05
Moore looked like shrimp next to Richard Kiel. The other picture is just a lot better, but also in the movie Lee looks only 3 inches taller than Moore.
But Gotxo, according to Rob Moore's CV says 6 ft 2, so I think that Moore hasn't lied about his height.
Gotxo said on 30/Nov/05
Mario, you missunderstood my explanation.
I meant that the Hero can't look as an shrimp compared to the villain, he must be a worthy opponet. In the books most of villains are only 3" taller than bond (Scaramanga & Bloffeld-->chec the novels TMWGG & YOLT) Dr. No is near 2 meters in the novel as Jaws is huge in the film, but they are freaks and depicted as it.
I do not hold to timely shrunkments, i was telling about the cinematographic narrative comon to most films. You see boggles! I'm not trying to downgrade him, i tell what i see.
The angle of Lee-Morre is correct, the rob photo is correct too, Moore was not small but big, about 6-6'1".
Tubbs said on 30/Nov/05
The picture you posted of Moore and Harris is the only shot from the whole film where Harris looks taller than Roger, the film is two hours long, and if you look closely, it looks as though Roger is tilting. There are plenty of other shots in the movie when they are standing together, and Roger is taller than Harris in every one of them.

Editor Rob
yes, in that pic they are very similar in height...Harris slightly closer to camera I think but they're eye levels look. At that point I think they've stopped moving but 1/2 inch difference can be if Harris is closer to camera. All I'm pointing out is Harris posture at times is bad in that movie, but I can recall the various scenes with them together and most folk would come to conclusion of Moore looking taller.

* In the flat there's another shot, directly after the pic shown where Moore is actually further away from the camera - the director though has elevated the camera a bit and it appears as though Moore is taller.
* When they are doing the planning, Harris rises and walks to the wall. At this point Moore is much closer and looks large. Harris walks back to seat.
* On the bridge Harris looks 1.5 inches shorter, but the ground is uneven sand.
* In the village hut Moore is closer to camera as Harris talks to Burton - he barely looks taller than Burton there and Moore may look bit taller.
* Similarly when outside the hut talking to priesty guy Moore/Burton closer to camera, Harris behind them.
* Very end 'circular' fade-out shot Moore looks tad taller, but Harris posture?
Mario Nariano said on 30/Nov/05
They casted Christopher Lee as Scaramanga in The Man with Golden Gun because he was taller than Moore. There are lot bad/guys in The Bond movies who are taller than the hero (Bond). And the shot that you posted of Lee and Moore is just terrible bad.

Just look at the Bond moviƩs. The most villians are tall in the most Bond. Its a lame excuse that the hero must be taller than the villian.
Gramps said on 29/Nov/05
Yes, I think that Harris/Moore picture gives Harris about a 1/2" advantage.
Gotxo said on 29/Nov/05
Sorry guys but the Lee-moore's pic it's not taken at a bad angle at all.
The one you post it's a closer shot, the time used in many films to even many height differences (let's not forget Moore plays the hero, he must bear positive values, one of them is being manly, not much smaller than the evil one).
I repeat, i enjoy Moores films, but honestly, he always looked smaller than Connery, him being 189 at best, can't conclude in a 188cm Moore, sorry.
dmeyer said on 29/Nov/05
i f you watch the quest with him and vandamme moore is towering ver him 184 cm looks right
CelebHeights Editor said on 29/Nov/05
Ok, a few weeks ago there was mention about Moore and Harris in Wild Geese. Harris kind of slouches a bit in that film and in fact in a lot of scenes both Moore or Harris don't look more than 3 inches at most more than Burton. Anyway, there is one little second in the film where you can see harris kind of straighten up a bit beside Moore. There's not much between them, if anything if Harris straightens up he may be more than Moore.
Here is shot of Moore and Harris. But, then Harris at one point, I think it was on the bridge looked shorter than Moore...
Tubbs said on 29/Nov/05
A recent picture of Roger and Caine, not sure whats happenend to Caine, but Roger is taller, looks like he could be 6'1 still. As for the picture from Gotxo of Rog and Lee, it's a bad angle, here is a much better picture, Mario has also posted it.
Mario Nariano said on 29/Nov/05
Why do you take such a bad picture of Moore and Lee? This picture is in Lee's favor, you can find a better picture of those two. The picture of him with the Asian girls is also bad, the girls are closer to the camera and Moore is with is legs open.
Gotxo said on 28/Nov/05
This ones are from his second bond film. He was fortysome an odd age to shrunk visibly.
Non 6'2" looking here
Mario Nariano said on 27/Nov/05
Everybody shrunk soon or late. Some begin losing height in there 30s and some others when they reach there 70s. Some lose a inch others lose 3 inches, it's for everybody different.
Tubbs said on 27/Nov/05
Not sure when this is from, but Roger doesnt look far off Connerys height. Either way, there ain't an inch between them, definately not two inches. Most pictures of Roger with 6'2+ guys, he's up there with them in the height stakes, it's time to upgrade him Rob to 6'1.

Editor Rob
that pics a fair few years ago
Gotxo said on 27/Nov/05
Mario, i'm not trying to downgrade Moore. In fact i enjoy his fils & series.
He was only 2-3 years older than Connery, and if nature does not treat us for equal, i don't find any serious reasosn for him to begin an shrinkage way before
the normal age and way before connery. I think honestly 6'1" is a quite good height for him as he never towered people as Connery did.
Mario Nariano said on 26/Nov/05
Gotxo, can you post some pics of Moore and Connery of the early 70s or 60s when both stood at there peak height? The only good pictures that I have founded of Moore and Connery are of the late 80s and early 90s.
Gotxo said on 26/Nov/05
LOL, i could be grong. He obviously never was any less than 6', that's for sure.
But even if Connery was a 6'2" or a bit over, why he looks more than an inch shorter than him in every pic they had together?
To me he was a solid 6'1" (185-186cm) and still is near, but nowhere 6'2".
Brett said on 25/Nov/05
Moore being less then 6'1" at his peak is very unbelievable, and even now I doubt he is much less then this, maybe closer to the 6ft mark, but still over it.
Mario Nariano said on 25/Nov/05
That's good shot Tubbs. Wich proofes that Moore was at the age of 45, 6 ft 2.
Tubbs said on 25/Nov/05
Publicity shot for Live And Let Die, next to 6'3 Kotto, looks 6'2 here, now tell me Roger 5'11/6'0 peak height.
Tubbs said on 25/Nov/05
What you on about McFly? Moore was a big guy, he still is for someone of his age, 6'1 now, and 6'1.5 when younger, Harris was 6'1, and Geldof is 6'2", Bono wears massively thick shoes that make him look taller. Just look at Mario comments to support the fact that Harris was 6'1, and Roger was 6'1.5.
Mario Nariano said on 25/Nov/05
Dude? Do you think that poeple is stupid? Harris has co-starred actors as Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton, Gene Hackman, Clint Eastwood, Roger Moore, Morgan Freeman, Gregory Peck, Anthony Quinn, James Caviezel and James Earl Jones who where are all between 6 ft 1 and 6 ft 4 at there peak. What a weak arguments McFly.
Mario Nariano said on 24/Nov/05
McFly if the Bond producers wanted that Moore looked tall in the Bond movies. They never would have cast actors as Richard Kiel, Yaphet Kotto, Julias W Harris, Christopher Lee, Curt Jurgens and other badies who are taller. In fact the vilians of the most Bond movies are just like the 007 actors quite tall. Moore appears in a lot of Bond movies barefoot and we can see that is legs are long not just like the ones of Brosnan
Tubbs said on 24/Nov/05
Two things get me with this site, the first one is that a lot of people assume that just because someone is over the age of 50 they have lost 2" or so in height, and the second one is that just because someone is taller than they believe they are, they are definately wearing shoe lifts. Anyone can say that without any evidence. Moore was, and still is a big guy, about 6'1 these days, Harris was 6'1, and Geldof is 6'2, all without lifts.
Tubbs said on 23/Nov/05
I must admit, Burton does look around the same height on that picture, but to say Harris was 5'10 at his peak is of the mark, and also to say that Roger was 5'11/6'0 is too. There is too much evidence to show that Roger was in the 6'1.5/2 range in the 70's. He's only an inch shorter than Yaphet Kotto (6'3") in Live and Let Die and is the same height as Anthony Perkins (6'2") in North Sea Hijack, also he is taller than Richard Harris in Wild Geese, and Harris was 6'1 back then. Even these days Sir Roger looks about 6'1, there are pictures of him with Geldof on Gettyimages, where he is fractionally shorter than Bob, and Bob is a genuine 6'2.
Mario Nariano said on 22/Nov/05
That picture isn't really good, in fact i can nothing with that picture of Caine and Moore. The one of Rob is better.
Somewhere in that Roger Moore photo gallery there is a better picture of Harris and Moore, but you have to watch the Wild Geese. Moore is clearly 1/2 inch taller than Harris.
Gotxo said on 22/Nov/05
About wild geese...
Gotxo said on 22/Nov/05
Well mario, there he looks kinda smaller than caine:
you see i? post full body shots and ill belive you.
Mario Nariano said on 21/Nov/05
McFly, Bacall looked 2 or 3 inches shorter than Bogart in the movies that she has with Bogart, does this mean that Bacall was 5 ft 5-6?

Gotxo, I was wrong about Michael Caine, I have watched a lot of Caine
Gotxo said on 20/Nov/05
Yeah, he was respectable by his acting skills (huge actor) not by his size.
Of course he only said about himself that he was 6'1", and he looked it.
BTW Mario if you agree with me that in Connery was 187 to 189cm why then moore shorter than him if he was a 188cm. And if he was like Caine, and Caine rounded up he was at best 186cm as him, not far from his stated 6'1".
Mario Nariano said on 20/Nov/05
Well Harris himself claimed to be 6 ft 1, so that's a lie McFly!
The media and some magazines listed him as 6 ft 3, but it dind't come of his mouth. You should have a little more respect for this great actor.
Gotxo said on 18/Nov/05
Mmm once a spanish actress (Esther Arroyo) meet him in London when she was not yet famous, at that time she was working in a shop. Moore looked there for something, bought nothing and departed. Only when he left the shop the other employees told her who he was. That was in the 80's-some.
That lady is as stall as some medium-small spanish actors, she is a former Miss Spain and was measured 177cm (5'9.7" )and described him as very good looking and tall mmm....
I trust in Mr.R's opinion...maybe he was taller than i imagined, but i can't still see him as a full 6'2" (maybe 186cm at best, never any less than 183cm).
double Hmmmm!
Mr. R said on 17/Nov/05
I saw Roger Moore years ago in New York, and he definitely seemed close to 6-2 at the time. This was in 1981. Certainly he is not that any longer.
Tubbs said on 17/Nov/05
Harris was atleast 6'1,no way 5'10, Harris was that height at school I bet pictures of him on this site where he is taller than 6'1 Coltrane, even when he was in his 70's, it was well known that Harris was a big guy, sometimes i've seen him listed as much as 6'3".
Mario Nariano said on 16/Nov/05
I hope for you that you are joking about Harris 5 ft 10?
Tubbs said on 16/Nov/05
I was watching the Wild Geese the other day, and Roger was taller that Richard Harris in every scene they had together. Harris was 6'1 back then, so Roger must have been 6'1.5 atleast. I know Roger is nearly 80 know, but I dont think he's lost much height, if you check out his posture in most pictures it is very good, I reckon he is still about 6'1, just check out pictures of him with Geldof! I must admit, I never really Roger waas that tall until I saw this website.
Mario Nariano said on 16/Nov/05
Well In The Deer Hunter there is good scene near the end in wich Walken is 4 inches taller than Robert De Niro (this also proofes that De Niro wasn't 5 ft 10 at his peak)
Brett said on 16/Nov/05
You guys think Moore is within 2 inches of Brosnan aaarh wrong heres a pic you cant argue with where brosnan is around 1.5-2 inches taller then Michael caine ( maybe moore). You can see his whole body and that he is physically bigger then caine and its not the difference in the shoes if any.

Here is a pic with Moore and caine, and Caine is convincingly bigger then moore(maybe 1-1.5 inches if Caine actually stood upright and stopped leaning)

So there you have it, I would say Moore is barely 6'0" maybe even under now in his old age. And christopher walken aint 6'1", he was measured on TV at 6ft, and he hasnt shrunk I doubt at all, definitely not an inch.
Mario Nariano said on 14/Nov/05
Watching more of Maud I would say that this lady was 5 ft 11 or close to it!
Moore looked n A View to a Kill similiar in height with Christopher Walken who was then 6 ft 1. hmmm...
Gotxo said on 9/Nov/05
Mario, when an actress plays her roll against a very tall male actor,normally they
use odd camera angles or boxes (as in Tom Welling-Kristin Kreuk shots in Smallville). She's tall enough to not need boxes, but nevertheles the same rule works here.
Gotxo said on 4/Nov/05
If Maud Adams was 175cm, then Roger can't be more than 6'1", probably only a bit over 6'0". In this pic she is not full stretched and as no footwear, and Moore does not look 4 inch over
What do you think Rob?
Tubbs said on 27/Oct/05
Here it is, I think its' fair to say Brosnans is wearing lifts, and is only just taller than Roger.
Tubbs said on 27/Oct/05
It does look to me as though Tonys' shoes may have a thicker heel in that picture. There's a picture about of Roger with Brosnan, who we know wore lifts in Goldeneye to make himself 6'2, Roger looks atleast 6'1 stood next ot him, i'll try and find it. I was under the impression that Harris was 6'2 in his peak, if not that tall, never below the 6'1 mark.
Mario Nariano said on 27/Oct/05
Good picture Gotxo, but who knows. Maybe Tony Curtis shoes have a little more you know, but maybe not. We need to compare him more to his co-stars in the 60 and 70s. As I have posted before he was in 1976 slighty taller than Richard Harris, does someone here think that Harris was under the 6 ft 1 mark at his peak?
Gotxo said on 26/Oct/05
Here he doesn't seems to ber more than 10-11cm than tony curtis:
So if tony was 175cm, he never has been taller than 6'1"
Mario Nariano said on 23/Oct/05
Connery isn't full straight in that picture and whe can't see there shoes, but yeah moore doesn't look shorter than 6 ft 1.

I noticed that Moore come's ussualy in his movie's to the top of the doors.
Tubbs said on 23/Oct/05
Quite a good picture of roger with Caine and Connery from 1982, Caine is in the foreground, so can be discounted, but Roger looks the same, maybe a fraction shorter than 6'1.5/2 Connery, they look as though they are standing right next to each other so perspective is'nt a factor. I reckon he's atleast 6'1 here.
Mario Nariano said on 23/Oct/05
I believe that the the picture of Caine, Moore and Connery is of the early 90s when Caine and Moore starred a movie together.I watched In The wild Geese recently, and Moore is slighty taller than Richard Harris (who was for sure not taller than 6 ft 1 at his peak). The movie is of 1976 and Moore looks 186/187 cm in it.

I believe that there are pictures of Connery and Moore of the 70s, but in all those pictures both are sitting...
Seb said on 21/Oct/05
A picure from 1983 shows Moore looking a good 2 inches shorter than the 6'1 and a half Sean Connery and the 6'2 Michael Caine. Moore, then aged 56, was probably a fraction under 6 feet.
Gotxo said on 19/Oct/05
Cool to know that the old chap is still 6' or a bit more. Macgregor is about 180cm at best. And yeah, of course he was taller when youth. Anyway he is impressive tall for his generation (born about 1927) and he's still taller than me! But i must insist he doesn't look anymore than 6'1" when compared to Tony Curtis, please check those pics. (And yeah, he was and is a big guy)
Mario Nariano said on 18/Oct/05
The pictures of Dalton and Moore are of the 90s. I believe that Dalton was then still at his peak height and that Moore who was in the 90s in his 60 and 70s had losed for sure some height. The picture of Caine, Connery and Moore is taken in the early 90s. Connery looked at the end of the (watch The Untoucbales) around the 6 ft 2 mark.
Anonymous said on 18/Oct/05
meet Sir Roger today at work and when he was being filmed beside ewan mcgregor he was taller. 6 ft 1 or 6ft 2 may have been feasible when he was in his youth but he still looks a six footer or more today.
TheMan said on 17/Oct/05
Yeah he is tall saw him on the ogrady show i don't think he's really lost that much height. Ogradys quite tall and he was taller than him.
Tubbs said on 17/Oct/05
Roger was in the army in the 1940's, is there any way of finding out his height in his youth from his army records? He still looks pretty tall, he was on the Paul O grady show a few months back and was just a bit taller than him.
Mario Nariano said on 14/Oct/05
I think that I know why Moore is ussually listed as 6 ft 1.
There have been numerous (fun) articles about James Bond, in wich they mentioned that every bond get's shorter. Those articles listed
Connery as 6 ft 3
Lazenby as 6 ft 2
Roger Moore 6 ft 1
Timothy Dalton 6 ft (this probably also the reason why some poeple think that he is shorter)
Pierce Brosnan as 5 ft 11.
Mario Nariano said on 13/Oct/05
I watched Live and let die and The Man of the Golden Gun recently and I think that Rob could be right about Moore's 6 ft 2.
Yaphet Kotto is 6 ft 3 and Moore doesn't look much shorter than him

Moore amd 6 ft 5 Lee

In his next Bond movie he certainly looked shorter.
CelebHeights Editor said on 8/Oct/05
Moore's agency resume lists him at 188cm.

As Bond when he was in his 50's He started the Saint aged 35. The guy may well have been measured in his 20's 6ft 2 and lost height??? I mean many an old guy will cling to the height of their youth ;)

Mario Nariano said on 7/Oct/05
Viper, it's a fact that Connery has been measured without shoes on, so just accept it, your are not the only 6 ft 2+ guy in this world you know?

From what I know, there are only pictures of Connery and Moore of the 80s and 90s, in in wich probably both guy's have losed some height.

I also don't think that Moore was 6 ft 2, but maybe he was little over the 6 ft 1 mark in the early 60s. He certainly looked close to 6 ft 2 in Maverick and The Saint series.
Viper652 said on 7/Oct/05
Hmm, why did they inflate Connery up to 6-2?? Hes never been that tall to begin with.
Gotxo said on 6/Oct/05
That Quotation is pretty interesting. He has several photos in wich Connery is a good 2" taller than him. Connery is taller than 6'1", a legit 6'2" in his young days. So that implies 2 things, our editor is right again and a 2" gain is the customarily Canonic add people tooks on when stating their height.
I propose all readers to add 2 inches more on their accounts! :)
Mario Nariano said on 30/Sep/05
In Bullseye! (1990), Roger looks an inch shorter than Michael Caine.
CelebHeights Editor said on 30/Sep/05
In a 1972 dutch tv program, Moore stated: "You know I am 6ft 2, my nose is straight, my eyes are blue and I get cast in the type of roles that leading men normally play. I'm not a character actor."
gotxo said on 18/Jul/05
Here the difference between them it is not so large
J.J.F said on 11/Jul/05
Lol. Tom Jones isnt 5'10 anymore mate. Moore was a good 6' at his peak, probably more like 5'11 now
MHouillon said on 25/Jun/05
Hey, JJ. Why this ridiculous statement ? Sir Roger Moore is slightly over 6'0". During the OBE-celebration in 1999 he is standing next to 5'10" Tom Jones and he was clearly taller (above 2 inches for sure).
Mr Luis said on 21/May/05
In the most Photo's and also in The movie 'The Man who would be a king' Connery was an half inch taller than Caine. The Pick of here above is taken in the also taken in the 80.
Rex said on 20/May/05
I remember in the 1988 I believe Oscars, Moore, Caine, and Connery all presented with each other. Connery claims he's 6'1 1/2", Caine claims's he 6'2". Both say this there height without shoes. In this presentation all men had same size heeled shoes on, and all stood next to each other on the flat stage. In fact Connery appeared half an inch shorter than Caine, and Moore appeared half an inch shorter than Connery. There are photos of this on the net as well. Moore is at least 6'1" in 1988.
JJ said on 17/May/05
Mr Luis, nowadays I think he's more like 5'9". I think in his prime he might be 5'10".
Mr Luis said on 17/May/05
Those days he isn't 6 ft 0.25 anymore. That pics are 20 and 30 years old and those days he looks like a 5'11 footer. It's normal this man is almost 80 years.
JJ said on 16/May/05
No way is Roger Moore 6 feet, 5'10" at best.
James Reel said on 16/Apr/05
I have met Roger Moore on 2 film sets (The Quest and A View to a Kill) and in shoes he is 6'1" exactly. I would say he is 6' without shoes.

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.