Add a Comment1071 comments
Average Guess (102 Votes)
6ft 1.14in (185.8cm)
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).
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)
said on 16/Nov/05
I know almost for 100% sure that Brosnan is woring lifts in that picture with Caine.
Brosnan and Moore back in 1996
Walken was at his peak for sure 6 ft 1, watch Batman Returns and the Deer hunter.[Editor Rob: if Walken was indeed 6ft 1...then Connery for sure was 6ft 2.5...I've seen the Anderson Tapes and in their couple of scenes connery did look taller...hmm
in 95 moore brosnan but they are kind of both on one foot mid-stride, so not great pic to be honest]
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.
Mario Nariano said on 5/Nov/05
I will tell you something about Maud Adams, a half year ago she dind't have a height on IMDB, somebody has added a height of Maud recently. I only know that she must be a tall lady for sure because, she dindn't look short by Christopher lee. If the 5 ft 9 of Maud is true (wich I don't think) then Chris Lee is also no more than 6 ft 3.
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"
said on 25/Oct/05
The more I see of Roger, the more the 6'2 could be feasible. I mean, he's 77 know and could have lost an inch, but when you look at pictures of him he is consistently the tallest guy, if not one of the tallest in the picture. My guess is he is 6'1 nowadays, and looks every inch of it. I've seen pictures of him with Tom Jones (5'10), and he's definately a couple of inches taller than Tom's hair, which has got to be 5'11", 6'0 high. I think it's about time Roger was listed as 6'1, there is just too much evidence to say otherwise.
[Editor Rob: Beside Caine 4 years back there isn't much difference...]
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.
Gotxo said on 18/Oct/05
Lol O'grady is listed 6'2" @ IMDB. If he's taller than that how can be smaller than connery, wich his tallest claim is 189cm (to me no less than 187-188cm).
And how again those pics with Timothy Dalton (various of them show a 5cm diff).
If Tony Curtis was 5'9" his eye level should coincide with Curtis top of
head. But when portrayed together in the Persuaders Curtis top of head was a bit above moore's eyebrows.
Can anyone exlain me this??
Of course he looked tall in TL&LD but not so in the next 007 ones.
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.
said on 13/Oct/05
Lol, You improve in quality the same shot i posted one mario.
Ok, the guy is tall.But to me never looked 6'2", especially when compared
to a nearly sure one (connery). 6" (for sure moore) 6'1" (possible).
But connery is no less than 3cm taller,and the age diff is not so wide in Connery's favour when they where photographed in the same shot.
We should check his pics when we was younger and not as famous (say Ivanhoe series and the likes)
Plus Rob, in his official site he claims to be 6'1", he has post there some articles (he could have complained if the datum was erroneus). What do you think on that? (check it please, i'm allmost sure i've read it in his own words)
[Editor Rob: I had a quick look but couldn't see this, although I did see this 1985 article describing him 6ft 2, 180lbs...if you ever find the 6ft 1 claim letus know.
I also found someone posting this on forum:
"Regarding the trivia question...on a bio-documentary I have of Sir Roger, I think it was done for A & E television in 1995, called Roger Moore: A Matter of Class, he, himself states that he is 6' 2". I found it interesting that all the information out there says he is 6' or 6' 1". I would be mo(o)re inclined to believing Sir Roger about such things"
So Moore has claimed in the 70's and 90's as being 6ft 2...of course he didn't look that height in the 70's. Question is if he every was near 6ft 2 in his 20's...who knows :-)
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.
Gotxo said on 8/Oct/05
I hate to insist,and yeah, he was the hero of the Grandies when he finished playing bond. But he looked 10 cm taller than Tony Curtis (near 175cm) when playing the persuaders (before Bond). And was always reported at 6'1" by IMDB (IMDB missreporting a star height instead the opposite?). And when portrayed alonside Connery he was mature but not old and he always was evidently no less than 5cm smaller. How tall was connery then? :0 ???
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 ;)
Gotxo said on 7/Oct/05
Rob you get me confused. At first the IMDB's 6'1" sounded right to me.I was surprised to read 6'0" here, but that made me wonder and it come to me as evident when i recalled the Connery-Moore photos. There are several of them and moore looks average (being tall) compared to Connery (wich was at least 187 cm when young-mature), about a 2" diff. But now you find a dusty quotation from 1972, and start to belive it. We love moore but we all know the chap is not the humblest in the world. He was also no taller than Cristopher Walken (184cm) in "A view to a kill" (yet a GranDaddy). You were doing it great till now, please keep up with the work!! (It is terrible funny!)
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! :)
Yao is 7-7 said on 2/Oct/05
they have him at 6-1 peak height, 6-0 now, suppose 6-1 peak height barefoot, could be 6-2 if he means with shoes on.
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."
Yao is 7-7 said on 12/Sep/05
I've looked it all over Moore is taller than people are claiming, and Brosnan is the shorest Bond, peak height not Moore.
It's even questionable if Brosnan is as tall as Moore is NOW.
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.
Mr Luis said on 17/May/05
He was always an inch and half smaller than the 6'2 actors so I think that he was really 6 ft 0.25 at his peak, maybe 6'1 in his 20ties.
I also renember a movie with Moore and Jean Claude van damme, and Van damme looked like a midget compared to moore.
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.