How tall is Clint Eastwood ?

Home :: Bookmark :: About  

Clint Eastwood's height is 6ft 0.5in (184 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 4in (193 cm)
American actor and Director best known for films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, Every Which Way But Loose, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Million Dollar Baby, Escape from Alcatraz, Space Cowboys and Gran Torino. In a racquetball website he stated he was '6ft 4'.

Ever met Clint Eastwood? Add your own contribution about their height below.
Add your opinion on the Height of Clint Eastwood

Your Comment:

James B says on 24/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 24/Apr/14
Yeah but when you start saying things like "Clint was only 6'2" as Neeson was 6'3"... You're claiming even Neeson wasn't 6'4" peak now which is just ridiculous. He's about as solid an example of a proper 6'4 guy as you can get. He may have lost a bit today but you seem to have a very hard job believing anybody could really be 6'4". Seagal and Robbins seem to be the only ones you believe are that big.


No I think Neeson was a legit 6'4
Arch Stanton says on 24/Apr/14
Yeah but when you start saying things like "Clint was only 6'2" as Neeson was 6'3"... You're claiming even Neeson wasn't 6'4" peak now which is just ridiculous. He's about as solid an example of a proper 6'4 guy as you can get. He may have lost a bit today but you seem to have a very hard job believing anybody could really be 6'4". Seagal and Robbins seem to be the only ones you believe are that big.
James B says on 23/Apr/14
Also Arch I only said I was taller before because I never knew how to measure myself properly.
James B says on 23/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 23/Apr/14
Eastwood looked 6'1" range in Gran Torino I think (although it might be because of the short "gook" actors in it) It was in Million Dollar Baby he looked nothing over 6' flat. James, just because you're a lot shorter than you claimed it doesn't mean Clint was. There's not a single film from the 80s or early 90s where Clint looked as low as a flat 6'2". Please stop with the "Clint was 6'2" max" claims. You're even downgrading Jackman to 6'1 now...


What are you talking about? I never said he was 6'2 max. I just said in my opinion he could look 188/189cm in some of his later movies from the 80s and 90s. In his earlier movies like fistful of dollars, play misty for me and the gauntlet he looked at least 191cm.


Also rob agrees with me that 6'1.5 is not impossible for Hugh jackman either.
Arch Stanton says on 23/Apr/14
Eastwood looked 6'1" range in Gran Torino I think (although it might be because of the short "gook" actors in it) It was in Million Dollar Baby he looked nothing over 6' flat. James, just because you're a lot shorter than you claimed it doesn't mean Clint was. There's not a single film from the 80s or early 90s where Clint looked as low as a flat 6'2". Please stop with the "Clint was 6'2" max" claims. You're even downgrading Jackman to 6'1 now...
James B says on 22/Apr/14
Sam says on 22/Apr/14
Gran Torino to be a big dude, closer to 6'4" than 6'0"

Lol is that a joke? In gran Torino looked MUCH closer to 6'0 than 6'4. Even back in his movies from the 80s only looked between 6'0 and 6'4 like 6'2. In his 60s and 70s films looked much nearer 6'4 than 6'0 though.
James B says on 22/Apr/14
In gran Torino I thought he looked 6'0-6'1
Sam says on 22/Apr/14
Yeah, he still seems on film in both Blood Work and Gran Torino to be a big dude, closer to 6'4" than 6'0", it seems to be only off-screen that his true height loss is apparent. Robbins pretty much towered him in 2004/05.
Arch Stanton says on 22/Apr/14
No James. Eastwood actually looked 6'4 in that film if Daniels is 6'3" but as Sam says he tends to slouch. That's why I said it's an anomaly for that period, I mean 6'4" looks a joke next to Tim Robbins in the Mystic River promo photos of course and that was only a year later.
James B says on 21/Apr/14
Sam says on 21/Apr/14
Yeah, Clint held his own with Jeff Daniels, which is an anomaly, but Daniels can be a bit slouchy and was supposed to be presenting a Dude-like demeanor in the role. Actually, Daniels would have been a good back-up if Bridges was unavailable for The Big Lebowski.


In blood work clint looked near 6'2 would you agree?
Sam says on 21/Apr/14
Yeah, Clint held his own with Jeff Daniels, which is an anomaly, but Daniels can be a bit slouchy and was supposed to be presenting a Dude-like demeanor in the role. Actually, Daniels would have been a good back-up if Bridges was unavailable for The Big Lebowski.
Arch Stanton says on 19/Apr/14
OK, I'll remember that.
Arch Stanton says on 19/Apr/14
Rob, how does a 9-10 film limit on mentioning films sound to you? That way next time I help you out on the empty pages for prolific actors I'll know what you consider to be the limit. Obviously with lesser prolific new actors you only need to mention one or two and for quite a lot of actors mentioning just 4 or 5 should suffice though. It depends on the actor of course but no more than 9 or 10 sounds reasonable don't you think for veteran actors who have over 50 films and are well known for quite a lot of different roles?
[Editor Rob: I think 9 is probably a max I think.]
Arch Stanton says on 19/Apr/14
Fair enough. I agree with your choices out of those. It's difficult when you've seen almost every film of Clint's to draw a line at what he is best known for and exclude some because there isn't a single film of his I haven't enjoyed, even if films like Pink Cadillac and City Heat were among his weaker efforts.
James B says on 18/Apr/14
Arch in where eagles dare clint looked about 190cm in my opinion. In dead pool looked 6'2ish however next to liam neeson looked a good 6'3 I agree.
Arch Stanton says on 18/Apr/14
Rob can you add some more films, best known for films like The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly, the Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Hang 'Em High, Joe Kidd, High Plains Drifter, The Eiger Sanction, Every Which Way But Loose, Escape from Alcatraz, Firefox, Pale Rider, Heartbreak Ridge, The Bridges of Madison County, Space Cowboys, Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino.
[Editor Rob: I need to watch the amount I put in sometimes, I'll add a few more though.]
Arch Stanton says on 18/Apr/14
There are certainly some questionable comparisons like Fleming as you say Sam and he did look a bit shorter than Gregory Walcott in Joe Kidd, but there's at least a dozen films in which a full 6'4" seems to check out in comparison to every other actor who claimed a certain height and as you say he always looked a couple of inches taller than 6'2" listed guys. I find it hard to believe the majority were wrong. In Where Eagles Dare they did their best to reduce the height difference between Eastwood and Burton through camera angles and at times it could look only 4 or 5 inches but you could often see during level shots etc just how much taller Eastwood really was than Burton and it was easily 6 inches. See the scene for instance just after they shoot the Germans inside the castle room and Burton is holding the notebook of names and Clint is stood next to him. Eastwood towered him. He began to lose height in the 1980s I think and by 1988 I think he was a little over 6'3", Neeson being 6'4.25 peak according to himself which looks believable. One anomaly of later is that in Blood Work from 2002 Eastwood actually looked easily an inch taller than Jeff Daniels in most scenes, although in one scene it looked the other way around.
IosuLM says on 17/Apr/14
Click Here

2:38... Donald and Clint...
Sam says on 17/Apr/14
I have to say in some of those photos with 6'3" Eric Fleming and the weirdly angled one with Buddy Ebsen, it's hard to believe a full 6'4" from those. However, look at him next George Kennedy, he's quite equal and there's no way Kennedy was under 6'4" IMO and Eastwood was clearly a couple inches taller than 6'2"ers like Gene Hackman and Lee Van Cleef, as well as Lee Marvin as Arch mentioned. Also, I don't think he looks under 6'3.5" next to 6'4" Liam Neeson at 57 y/o in The Dead Pool.
James B says on 16/Apr/14
Lillo thomas says on 16/Apr/14
Clint Eastwood was 6'3 at best peak . No way 6'4 barefoot.


Well in the Gauntlet looked close to 6'4.
Lewis says on 16/Apr/14
These days Clint is probably 6' on the nose. Age on the bones have not been well to him.
Lillo thomas says on 16/Apr/14
Clint Eastwood was 6'3 at best peak . No way 6'4 barefoot.
Arch Stanton says on 16/Apr/14
Yeah it's a good idea sometimes I think. You value it more I find when you pop in after a while and still see the same comments appearing :-)
James B says on 15/Apr/14
If you stood a peak Seagal and peak clint side by side there would be about 1 inch between the 2.
Arch Stanton says on 15/Apr/14
Greetings Rob and co hope you're well, I'm still on a break from the site, but I'll comment occasionally. LOL, enough of the Jackman-Beckham comparisons! Neither of them are really comparable to Eastwood.If anybody doubts Eastwood was 6'4 peak watch Paint Your Wagon, he had a strong 2 inches on Lee Marvin, actually looked 6'4.5" if Marvin was 6'2" at the time. Also recommend watching Any Which Way You Can where he looked a good 2 inches taller than 6'2" listed William Smith too aside from all the other comparisons we frequently talked about in the past. Not 6'3", he really looked the full 6'4" in most comparisons peak.
[Editor Rob: well, a break is always useful. I sometimes need a break myself, and it's only very occasionally at an event I don't do much with the site.]
Chaz says on 14/Apr/14
Armold Schwarzenegger could Bench more than 350lbs lol,he bench 212.5kg in 1968 powerlifting Contest,that was at 260lbs body weight,and could do sets of 12-15 reps with 3 plates 315lbs in he's peack bodybuilding days at only 235lbs,

and Beckham is as thin as a rake,have you seen them Arms? lucky if they could push 140lbs
Gilipollas says on 14/Apr/14
Sam, maybe Clint was not that much interested in lifting. Maybe Clint never cared about aesthetics as Hugh. Clint is a smartass, badass, charismatic alpha man in real life and a legend. Hugh is nowhere near Clint. David Beckham was a great soccer player and very underrated because of his looks and social life.
Sam says on 10/Apr/14
In terms of strength? Probably a lot less at peak upper-body strength but he's very lean, with powerful legs as is necessary of football/soccer players. Beckham has never struck me as having much of a personality from what little I've seen of him. I don't know if he tries to laconic like Eastwood but Eastwood is an actor and subscribes to the Cooper school of communicating a lot with little at the surface.
James B says on 9/Apr/14
How does beckham compare to jackman and eastwood?
chucker says on 9/Apr/14
I they are very close in terms of strengh (Eastwood 1978, Jackman present). Jackman is pretty strong to BP 315. Guys with longer arms alway have a disadvange in the BP department. More range of motion makes it more difficult than their shorter armed counterparts. Eastwood has long arms too.
Sam says on 9/Apr/14
Perhaps I'm wrong...I wasn't sure if Eastwood could have bench-pressed more than 300 pounds like Jackman did but it's possible. I think Jackamn's top bench was 315 lb, Schwarzenegger around 350 lb and Shaq 400+ lb, Lou Ferrigno probably close to 400 lb. I'd be Joe Manganiello would be up there as well.
chucker says on 7/Apr/14
Jackmans stonger than Eastwood ever was?? I respectfully disagree. Have you seen the movie Any which way but Loose. Eastwood looked like one strong SOB!
James B says on 2/Apr/14
Sam says on 2/Apr/14
I wouldn't be surprised that when he's fully trained for the Wolverine role, Jackman's stronger than Eastwood ever was...but Jackman can't help but seem like a nice guy who's always going to do the right thing even in that role, Eastwood's guys back in the day were almost as nasty as the villains and would pretty much shoot you for looking at them funny. Beckham isn't even an actor, so it's hard to compare personality but physically he's obviously smaller.
I was thinking about Death Rides a Horse where they even put John Philip Law, who was taller and bigger than Eastwood, in basically the same poncho and gave him a similar role, but he just couldn't come close to the same screen presence as Eastwood as the Man with No Name.


In dead pool eastwood was stronger thn hugh jckman
Sam says on 2/Apr/14
I wouldn't be surprised that when he's fully trained for the Wolverine role, Jackman's stronger than Eastwood ever was...but Jackman can't help but seem like a nice guy who's always going to do the right thing even in that role, Eastwood's guys back in the day were almost as nasty as the villains and would pretty much shoot you for looking at them funny. Beckham isn't even an actor, so it's hard to compare personality but physically he's obviously smaller.
I was thinking about Death Rides a Horse where they even put John Philip Law, who was taller and bigger than Eastwood, in basically the same poncho and gave him a similar role, but he just couldn't come close to the same screen presence as Eastwood as the Man with No Name.
James B says on 1/Apr/14
Sam says on 1/Apr/14
Clint is also a top-knotch director, he takes after John Ford a lot in his style, with a sense of economy he probably got from Don Siegel. There's little obvious Leone influence outside of High Plains Drifter. I can see a dim resemblance in both Beckman and Jackman to a young Eastwood but both are obviously not at the stage to have as storied careers and, although both are very fit, strong dudes, not as formidable in nature

Eastwood was probably stronger than Beckham and had a larger frame. Clint weighed like 203 pounds in his 30s. Beckham on the other hand weighs like 154 pounds these days and is more like Bruce lee in terms of build and quickness.

Jackman on the other hand is very robust but has to work hard for it. That said dont buy his listing of 15 stone 5 he looks more like 14 stone range to me. In my opinion he as well he looks more like 6'1.5 or 6'1 in stature does not look a legit 6'2.
Sam says on 1/Apr/14
Clint is also a top-knotch director, he takes after John Ford a lot in his style, with a sense of economy he probably got from Don Siegel. There's little obvious Leone influence outside of High Plains Drifter. I can see a dim resemblance in both Beckman and Jackman to a young Eastwood but both are obviously not at the stage to have as storied careers and, although both are very fit, strong dudes, not as formidable in nature.
James B says on 1/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 1/Apr/14
Agreed Sam. I actually thought Clint looked at his best in the late 60s and early 70s James, more rugged and weathered and more virile than he was smooth faced in the 50s. Looked better with the beard than clean shaven too. James, Beckham spends thousands of dollars on his appearance and undoubtedly spends considerable time every day to look the way he does, he didn't use to look like that, see his mid 1990s United days! I can't imagine Clint being the same, although it is clear he always took good care of himself. Beckham's clearly trying to look like Steve McQueen/Clint Eastwood.


I dunno I think even from a young age becks and clint looked alike

Go to 4:42 in the video here

Click Here


If you look at clint eastwood as a child in that clip and beckham at the same age even back then they looked very similar (especially around the eyes)
Arch Stanton says on 1/Apr/14
Agreed Sam. I actually thought Clint looked at his best in the late 60s and early 70s James, more rugged and weathered and more virile than he was smooth faced in the 50s. Looked better with the beard than clean shaven too. James, Beckham spends thousands of dollars on his appearance and undoubtedly spends considerable time every day to look the way he does, he didn't use to look like that, see his mid 1990s United days! I can't imagine Clint being the same, although it is clear he always took good care of himself. Beckham's clearly trying to look like Steve McQueen/Clint Eastwood.
James B says on 31/Mar/14
littlesue says on 31/Mar/14
I would say to most women Beckham a better height than Eastwood although I agree that Eastwood more charismatic and smarter.


I bet a young eastwood could get more women than beckham. I am sure there are plenty of women would like a near 6'4 guy to a 5'11 man.
littlesue says on 31/Mar/14
I would say to most women Beckham a better height than Eastwood although I agree that Eastwood more charismatic and smarter.
Sam says on 31/Mar/14
Clint undoubtedly has a charitable side, too. There's an amusing quote from Hugh Jackman about his less than friendly interaction with Eastwood, on the other hand. I understand Eastwood gets pretty fuming mad when someone brings up his checkered love life as a bit of a womanizing, faithless scoundrel but that is personal stuff. No matter what I've read about his personal life or politics, I'm still a fan of Clint and his movies, the guy's a badass.
James B says on 30/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 29/Mar/14
Oh that's undoubtedly true. Eastwood wouldn't be up on British comedy and Gervais is sort of out of his league over in the states IMO. I can quite imagine that would be Eastwood's response to them, he is cantankerous and quite a lot like he is in films in RL.


Gervais and Kate winslet we're born in a town called 'Reading' which is only 17 miles away from where I live. Small world eh?
filmfan says on 30/Mar/14
I can't believe someone says Clint looks like Ricky. Tbh the way Clint is shrinking Gervais will tower him soon.
Knowen says on 29/Mar/14
He was an inch shorter than 6ft2,5 ali, ali was about an inch shorter than harve wich makes harve 6ft3,5
James B says on 29/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.

Between becks and a young eastwood who would you say is better looking?

I personally think eastwood is better looking for these reasons......

A lot taller
Smarter
More charisma
More masculine/bad ass voice

In think 'facially' beckham has a better face though cause he has a stronger jaw and nose no denying though beckham is a nicer more charitable person. Hands down though a young clint is better looking than hugh jackman (no homo).
IosuLM says on 29/Mar/14
Minute 2.53.... Chevy Chase (192 cms) and Charlton Heston (65 years old)

Click Here

Clint and Charlton

Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 29/Mar/14
Yeah that's the impression I got Sam from his biographies. He can be friendly and easy going one moment but if anybody does the slightest thing to cross him or annoy him he'll turn on you and come down on you like a ton of bricks. Not a man you want to be on the wrong side of! That's a Taurus trait though, the bull who is friendly until crossed and shown the red flag, I'm a typical Taurus myself, but Clint's birthday May 20 is actually Gemini.
Arch Stanton says on 29/Mar/14
Oh that's undoubtedly true. Eastwood wouldn't be up on British comedy and Gervais is sort of out of his league over in the states IMO. I can quite imagine that would be Eastwood's response to them, he is cantankerous and quite a lot like he is in films in RL.
IosuLM says on 28/Mar/14
Clint next to Julio Iglesia (6.1)

Click Here

Julio with Enrique (6 1.5)

Click Here
Sam says on 28/Mar/14
Yeah, about as little as two Caucasian could resemble each other. I've read that quote from Gervais too and it entirely in fitting with Eastwood's personality from what I've read and people who've met him, a gentlemen one minute, a grimacing old crank (pretty much like a less racist version of his character in Gran Torino) the next.
Lillo thomas says on 27/Mar/14
James b . What the hell you are talking about ? In the pic you posted Clint eastwood doesn't look 6'4 at all with 6'1 peak arnold. I see less than 2 inches difference there. By the way cute babies.
James B says on 27/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.


I tell you a funny story from Ricky's own mouth:

"Apparently, I donít know if this is true but I hope it is, Iíve heard it from a few reports, when we went up to get our awards apparently Clint Eastwood turned to someone that he was with and went, Who the **** are they?"

LOL

Ricky might have been joking though?
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
James B says on 26/Mar/14
Off topic but is it just me or does clint Eastwood bear a resemblance to ricky Gervais in the good the bad and the ugly?
Click Here
jervis says on 26/Mar/14
Clint looks more like 6ft3 next to Arnold about 2 inches taller.I would put clints peak at a bit lower than 6ft4' maybe 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.
jervis says on 26/Mar/14
I think looking at eastwood and Fleming again they look the same hight.
jervis says on 26/Mar/14
Very close in hight with Fleming.
IosuLM says on 26/Mar/14
Click Here

With Eric Fleming, who was 6.3
Arch Stanton says on 26/Mar/14
He looked 6'3 in the 80s yeah.
James B says on 25/Mar/14
Clint looks 6'4 next to arnie here
Click Here
James B says on 25/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]

If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.


Well would you agree clint looked shorter in heartbreak ridge and the dead pool compared to how tall he looked in the enforcer for instance? I think between 1976-1978 clint lost a bit of height.
jervis says on 24/Mar/14
Looked the same hight as 6ft4 Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz to me.Also looked taller by about 1 inch than 6ft2 big Bill Smith and about 1 inch shorter than Neeson in thr dead pool.He looked in the 6ft3 range to me in the eghties,in the nineties more 6ft2.5.Down to 6ft2 in 2000 to 2005.From age 75 to 80 droped below 6Ft2,now at almost 84 he is about 6ft1 or 6ft.5 depending on posture.
Lillo thomas says on 24/Mar/14
Nick of course at 85 years of age . Clint eastwood is expected to lose height but between 1-2 inches. If clint eastwood was really 6'4 peak than means he is about 4 inches shorter . This fact is very hard to believe. My father is 82 years old and about 1.5 inch shorter from his peak.
Lillo thomas says on 24/Mar/14
James B Clint eastwood never give me a legit 6'4 impression watching his films as a kid. I always thought he was between 6'2 and 6'3.
Arch Stanton says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]

If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
James B says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]


Did me remarking that he looked 6'2 in escape from Alcatraz prompt you to have another look at his peak height? In all of films from the 80s and up to 2002 he looked like a strong 6'2 guy but not 6'4 or even 6'3.

In blood work which was only made in 2002 clint looked 188cm since then though he has been looking shorter than that
[Editor Rob: no, I have been meaning to rewatch his films for a while.]
nick says on 24/Mar/14
Of course hes lost inches hes nearly 85 years old for crying out loud.
the shredder says on 21/Mar/14
I find it to believe Danny Glover lost 2 inches. He is 6'1 but looked 6'3 peak. I actually am strating to think glover was 6'2.5 max.
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
Sam says on 21/Mar/14
Not all older men have a distinct hump along their back (I think Rob calls it a dowager's hump), but Eastwood does. Think of other tall guys like Sidney Poitier and Christopher Lee who maintained a relatively straight spine until they were in their 80s. Even with his obviously greater health problems, John Wayne maintained more height it seems than Clint has.
Lillo thomas says on 20/Mar/14
I agree Clint losing nearly 4 inches from his peak is unbelievable. Most guys as his age are around 2 inches shorter max.
littlesue says on 20/Mar/14
My Mom last 2 inches and she 77, my Nan and her 3 sisters all lived to 93 and lost between 6 to 8 inches
Realist says on 20/Mar/14
Rob can people really lose almost 4 inches in a life time that means a 5'8 guy would become 5'4.
[Editor Rob: the longer your spine the more potential for losing more. If you lost an inch by 70's that is pretty common for men, 2 inches would be more common for women, but once you get to 80-90 that's when you can lose a fair chunk. ]
James B says on 19/Mar/14
Orbach was probably 6'1 flat by that stage
jervis says on 19/Mar/14
In escape from alcatraz there is a tall tin actor in many sceans with clint.I forget his name but I seen him listed as 6ft4 and clint looks as tall as him.If humprys was 5ft8 then clint was easly 6ft4 in at his peak.
chucker says on 19/Mar/14
Jeff Bridges is not and never was 6'2. 6'1" max.
IosuLM says on 19/Mar/14
Click Here

Look this picture... Michael Moriarty is taller than jerry orbach (6 1.5)... In Pale Rider Clint is taller tan Michael... (2 cms)
James B says on 19/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.


I think clint looked 6'2 or 6'2.5 even back in escape from Alcatraz. Looked the same height range as Morgan freeman in that film. Granted I think he appears 6'3 in the any which way you can films.

Also I can't see clint looking any taller than 189cm in the line of fire.
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
John Humphreys? 5 ft 8. And yeah in that 1967 interview Eastwood looks easily 6'4".
jervis says on 18/Mar/14
Dose anybody no how tall john humprys the bbc news reader is,because there is an interview with him and clint on YouTube,and clint is so much taller than him he makes humprys look like a little boy.On the photo of clint and arnie both men look almost the same hight with clint slightly taller.But there is another photo of both men from the same peroid,both are holding a baby,and in that photo clint is clerarly 2inches taller than arnie.
James B says on 17/Mar/14
By 1995 arnie was probably no taller than 186cm. In this photo clint looks 6'1.5-6'2

Click Here
James B says on 17/Mar/14
Bridges might have been 186cm at peak?

Even though I thought clint looked 6'2 range in dead pool that might have just because he was much bulkier. in heartbreak ridge, in the line of fire and unforgiven, escape from alcatraz as well I thought he looked more 6'2 in those particular movies. I agree with arch though in the enforcer he looked 6'4 or 6'3 1/2.

He defo looked shorter in his movies from the 80s compared to his 70s movies. Thinning hairstlye, natural shrinking and being heavier could have had something to do with that?
Sam says on 17/Mar/14
This article claims "about 6'3"" as the height for both Eastwood and John Wayne:
Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 17/Mar/14
Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Bridges.
James B says on 16/Mar/14
In thunderbolt looked 6'3
filmfan says on 16/Mar/14
Just watched Thunderbolt and Lightfoot again and Eastwood is about two inches taller than Jeff Bridges. I think Eastwood possibly was about a 6'4'' guy afterall. Having said that it is hard to think of him as tall as say Jeff Goldblum as has already been mentioned. On a side note I work with a guy who claims he is 6'4'' when he is no taller than 6'2'' max. Plus a 5'9'' to 5'10'' who claims 5'11''. A guy who might or might not scrape 6ft and who claims 6'1''. Most guys seem to think they are an inch or two taller than they are. On this site most of the comments tend to suggest film stars are shorter than their 'official' heights. Rarely do the comments go the other way with the official height possibly an underestimate. I think it's an ego thing with guys to exaggerate their height. Although as few people are actually measured properly they probably don't realise their mistake.
James B says on 14/Mar/14
Sutherland often looked 6'2 1/2 range
IosuLM says on 13/Mar/14
Click Here
mirad el minuto 0:09... son similares
Arch Stanton says on 13/Mar/14
Goldblum looks 2cm taller than Sutherland to me.
James B says on 12/Mar/14
With muhammed Ali in th 70s

Click Here
James B says on 11/Mar/14
Eastwood looked 6'3 range in a lot of his films
IosuLM says on 11/Mar/14
Click Here
They look at jeef and Donald ... are similar in cutting height ... and clint was higher than donald!
Arch Stanton says on 9/Mar/14
So have I Jervis and him and Sutherland barely ever stand next to each other in the film but on the occasions where they're together Eastwood look ed a bit taller. Look at the chin level when they first meet. Aside from that anyway Eastwood LOOKED 6'4 in Kelly's Heroes as he did in most of his 60s and 70s films.
jervis says on 8/Mar/14
I have seen kellys heros many times and to my eye clint and Sutherland look the same hight,even in photos from the movie i see no difference in hight between both men.But in space cowboys Sutherland looks taller by at lest 1inch showing clint had lost at least 1inch by the age of 70.
jervis says on 8/Mar/14
I ment he looked shorter than 6ft3.5 because of slouching when he eas young.l think now he is around 6ft1 but never stands stright so tendes to look shorter.
Arch Stanton says on 8/Mar/14
He's lost a lot of height, not just slouching. He actually looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 70s.
jervis says on 8/Mar/14
Eastwood weak 6ft4 more like 6f t3.5 most of the day,but looks shorter now because of slouching.
arbuckle says on 2/Mar/14
I think Clint was inches taller when he first became famous than he is now.
He is at least 80 years old after all. 3-2-2014.
Bruno says on 1/Mar/14
Presnell does look taller but then he is listed on other sites as 6'5''.
berta says on 28/Feb/14
Click Here about the same height as ali here. I think clint was 191 and measured 193 in the morning and then said he was that height and probably didnt thinkm utch about morning and evening height. He is listed the same height as goldblum but i think goldblum was almost 3 cm taller when both was in peak.
filmfan says on 27/Feb/14
The clip with Clint Eastwood and Harve Presnell is on youtube. Titled Muhammad Ali and Clint Eastwood on David Frost or something. It's a great clip. You see Eastwood standing next to Harve Presnell who is listed 6'4''. They are close in height but to my eyes Presnell appears slightly taller. Ali says he is 6'2'' and also states both Eastwood and Presnell are bigger than him.
Ronster says on 22/Feb/14
Thebad7, excellent post. Sadly not many on here are the least bit interseted in the truth lol.
chucker says on 12/Feb/14
Okay Arch, For peak height I'll say 6'3" and POSSIBLY some change, barefoot, in the morning.
Arch Stanton says on 12/Feb/14
You can argue 6'3" range barefoot but I think it's obvious in the comparisons he wasn't under that.
chucker says on 11/Feb/14
Hey lighten up Arch. No body said Clint was .5" to 1" taller than Van Cleef and Bridges. I believe if he was a legit 6' 4" he would tower over them. I always thought Bridges was only 6'1" anyway. Clint was taller than those actors but not by too much. I and many here believe Clint was not 6'4" but quite tall none the less. A legit 6 3" guy is tall and he would seem taller if he was lean like Eastwood.
Arch Stanton says on 10/Feb/14
Yea Avim don't both answering the "he was 6'2.5" tops type of posters. Anybody who thinks he was only 0.5-1 inch taller at 6'2.5" next to guys like Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges really needs glasses!!
avi says on 8/Feb/14
@Mark says on 30/Jan/14

Aren't you the guy from the roger Moore page? If so you have no idea of height as you thought Lee was over 4 inches taller. Your judgement is skewed.
chucker says on 8/Feb/14
I do not believe Clint was ever 6'4" I think 6'3" tops. Just the way I see it folks. He had the kind of lean build that made him look taller than he really was. Plus as a leading man directors used camera shots enhanced his height. He definitly did not tower over alot of actors who were in the 6'1 to 6'2" range like Lee Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges.
rowdy yates 188cm says on 7/Feb/14
Clint's always looked like a 6'2"1/2 guy to me right back from the start. He was'nt 6'4" There are far to many pics from the 80's 90's to prove this. Beside he would stood at around 6'4" any way. There' s no way the guy lost nearly ten cm in height. He would still stand around 187/188cm today even at his age. Iknow a few 70 80 yr olds and are still 6'5 or 6'4" evev
Even at 80 the most shrinkage would be 4cm maximum.
jervis says on 4/Feb/14
Just watched that show Presnell looks to have an inch on Clint,Ali an inch shorter than Clint,making 40 year old unshrunken Clint 6ft3 as I always taught he was.
jervis says on 4/Feb/14
Just watched that show Presnell looks to have an inch on Clint,Ali an inch shorter than Clint,making 40 year old unshrunken Clint 6ft3 as I always taught he was.
filmfan says on 2/Feb/14
Have watched a David Frost show from 1969 at the time Paint Your Wagon was released. Eastwood's co-star from that film Harve Presnell appears alongisde Eastwood. When they are both standing 6'4'' Presnell looks the bigger man although the difference is not great. Muhammad Ali is also on the show and seems slightly shorter than Eastwood. Incredible guest list btw and the actors speak their mind onn the show. Not like today where the stars answers to questions are rehearsed whenever they are interviewed.
176,2Tunman says on 2/Feb/14
Looked very similar to 191-2 Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
Tony G says on 31/Jan/14
@thebad7: Very good summary. Seems accurate to me.
thebad7 says on 31/Jan/14
@Arch: Glad you liked it. Again, I think 2004/2005 was the last time Eastwood was near 6'2", and even then, Freeman had a noticeable advantage over him in MDB.
As for THE GAUNTLET, yes--no 6'2" man towers people the way Eastwood does when he's walking through that concourse to the street. That's my OPINION--even if others don't like it.

@Mark: Likewise, ace--you aren't necessarily a good judge of height yourself--but you sure sound like that ultimate judge you're criticizing. I'm 6'3" myself--or, since you want to be so precise about things: first thing out of bed and barefoot, I'm 6'3 1/2"; I'm 6'3 1/4" most of the day and I stay there until bedtime. In short, if I'm asked my height, I tell people: 6'3". You're not the only one who's encountered "poor judges of height." Personally, I believe Urich was 6'2", and if you don't agree, so be it. Having said that, I'm aware this is an "opinion" site. I happened to be sick of reading things like 'Eastwood was 6'2" tops.' That kind of comment is flat out wrong. Now, for those out there--people like you--who believe he was 6'3"+, you'll notice I've never criticized them for having that OPINION--6'3" I can buy, even if I don't agree with it, but 6'2" I can't because if it was true he wouldn't look the same height as people like George Kennedy. If you believe he was 6'3", then fine. I'm simply pointing out that the man towered over people in his films when he was younger.

And I never claimed to be an ultimate judge of anything. Appreciate your condescending post, by the way.

tb7
Arch Stanton says on 31/Jan/14
@Mark, it's an educated opinion though having seen these actors in many films and noting how they looked together. It's not just a blind guess. And generally my guesses are the same or similar to Rob's and a number of other regulars here. We don't know that Ulrich was 188cm barefoot, but we can certainly take note of what he claimed or was listed at and more importantly how he looked. And he did look close to it.
Mark says on 30/Jan/14
May I remind almost everyone here that none of us have actually met these people we are talking about, and even if you have, you're not neccesarily a good judge of height. I'm 6'0 exactly. I have met many a guy who says he's also 6 feet, but he's taller or shorter. There is an absolute obsession on this site that it's a given that Robert Urich was 6'2. Other actor's heights are also used to judge Eastwood's. The bottom line is, this is an OPINION site. Every now and then I'll toss in an opinion on other actors, as well as Eastwood, and there's always some guy who mouths off like he's the ultimate judge (as just happened on another page). It's ridiculous. This is an "opinion" site.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Jan/14
I was about to groan when I saw the huge post but it's actually a superb post, very well constructed and I agree with most of what you say, except on Neeson being 6'5, he himself said a bit over 6'4", so 194 for him. Eastwood at the time was about an inch shorter though as you say but had already begun losing height. And Walcott did look taller I thought but not much in it and in Mystic River production/premiere photos from 2003 before 2004-5 it's very tough to see 6'2" for Eastwood next to Robbins and him 6'2 next to Freeman in Million Dollar in 2004 but he could still look near 6'2" in some early 2000s photos agreed. And I consider The Gauntlet to be one of Eastwood's most enjoyable and underrated films too!! It's funny you say watch Eastwood walk in The Gauntlet I said EXACTLY the same thing a few months back. I said anybody who doubts 6'4" just watch him walk in The Gauntlet! It's obvious...
thebad7 says on 29/Jan/14
Every now and again, you'll see these ridiculous posts stating Eastwood was only ever 6'2" in his prime. Get real. The man was 6'4" at his peak; he always stacks up this way against tall actors and there's simply too much photographic evidence out there supporting this figure.

1965 - 1966: Second & third DOLLARS films. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Van Cleef. Both men wearing cowboy boots with similar heels.

1973: MAGNUM FORCE. Clint has 2" on 6'2" actors Tim Matheson and Robert Urich--and this is with loose posture and a footwear disadvantage (Clint in flat-soled running sneakers, and Matheson, Urich, Niven, & Soul wearing knee high Red Wing motorcycle boots with about a 1" heel). Standing side-by-side with Soul during the Charlie McCoy sendoff, Clint has almost 3" on weak 6'1" David Soul.

1974: THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. Clint has 2" and a bit of change on strong 6'1"/weak 6'2" Jeff Bridges. Standing face-to-face with 6'4" George Kennedy, Clint is the same height--and both actors are wearing similar style dress shoes.

1975: THE EIGER SANCTION. Face-to-face with strong 6'4" Gregory Walcott ("Pope"), Clint is the same height--with maybe a fraction of advantage going to Walcott. Walcott was a big, burly guy with high, powerful shoulders that sometimes made him appear even taller than what he was.

1977: THE GAUNTLET (Clint's most underrated and misunderstood film as an actor & director). In the opening scene, following the panoramic of the rising sun and the Phoenix, AZ skyline, you see Clint walking out of a bar and across Third Street to his Chevy Impala. Just look at the guy's legs. That's no 6'2" man--that's a 6'4" man. Likewise, in an early scene--when Clint is walking from the Vegas airport terminal to street level in his blue sports coat and Foster Grant gradient aviators, the man towers over bystanders the way a legitimate 6'4" man would.

1980: ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN. Face-to-face with strong 6'2" William "Big Bill" Smith, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Big Bill during the Palomino bar fight when they formally meet, and then later following the big scrap in Jackson Hole, WY.

1988: THE DEAD POOL. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" Liam Neeson, Clint looks about 1" shorter. Bare minimum 6'3 1/2" for him at this stage, and it wasn't until around 1992 that the height loss became noticeable.

As late as 2004 - 2005, Clint still looked to be around the 6'2" mark, but not anymore. Today, I would guess him to be a flat 6'1" first thing in the morning, and a weak 6' by bedtime. Despite his advanced age and possible health problems (scoliosis perhaps, for example), make no mistake: the guy towered over people when he was younger, and he always stacked up well against tall men.

One final note: there is a photograph available online of a Career Achievement Dinner for John Wayne that occurred around 1969. In the photo, the Duke is standing before a giant cake, slicing into it with relish. Duke is surrounded by the major male stars of the day--Clint, Rock Hudson, Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, and Fred MacMurray. Standing next to 6'5" Rock Hudson--and both men have poor posture because they're looking down at Duke cutting the cake, Clint only looks about 1" shorter than the Rock--and I believe that Rock had a bit of change for his 6'5".

6'2" peak for Clint? No. Furthermore, not everyone in Hollywood lies about their height. Clint was tall enough--he had no reason to lie about that.

tb7
Bruno says on 28/Jan/14
Looked at In the line of fire (1993), Eastwood stands face to face with Brian Libby, Libby is listed as 6'4'' and he looks to be .5'' taller than Clint.

Late on he is in a scene with Fred Dalton Thompson(6'5'') and they never stand face to face so its hard to judge but Thompson looks about 1.5 - 2 '' taller.

Both men are quite a bit younger than Clint, so I'd put his peak height at 6'4''
and around 6'3.5'' in 1993.
Ali says on 26/Jan/14
Clint Eastwood looks 6ft tops these days. I don't see him standing 6'1
at all. He definitely has lost at least 2 inches height. He was at least
6'2 in his prime. I think 6'3 peak might be possible for him.
avi says on 26/Jan/14
always a 6'3 range when younger.
Arch Stanton says on 24/Jan/14
I actually think Eastwood could have measured 194 out of bed at peak.
Maio says on 21/Jan/14
--- PEAK ---
Morning/Out of Bed: 6 ft 4 in/193,0 cm
Late Morning/Midday: 6 ft 3.6 in/192,1 cm
Afternoon: 6 ft 3.4 in/191,4 cm
Evening/Night: 6 ft 3.2 in/190,9 cm

--- TODAY ---
Morning/Out of Bed: 6 ft 1.3 in/186,4 cm
Late Morning/Midday: 6 ft 1 in/185,4 cm
Afternoon: 6 ft 0.8 in/185,0 cm
Evening/Night: 6 ft 0.6 in/184,5 cm
Mark says on 20/Jan/14
Perhaps it's all designed to keep our egos in check (although I don't think Sean Connery has shrunk much, nor has my 6'2, 78 year old uncle...if at all). But it is startling to see that this guy, Eastwood, so towering in earlier films (though I still say 6'3 plus, not 6'4), has shrunk so much, clearly.
James B says on 20/Jan/14
In unforgiven I think clint eastwood stood 189-190cm.

In his prime probably was 6'3 1/2
thebad7 says on 20/Jan/14
There's no doubting it: he's no longer 6'4" and he hasn't seen that height since the late 80s/early 90s. Although he's serious about fitness and he's always taken good care of himself, time catches everyone. Every once in awhile, someone will bring up the hump he has where his neck and shoulders connect to his back. Even as a younger man--I'm thinking specifically of 1968's COOGAN'S BLUFF and both 1971's THE BEGUILED and PLAY MISTY FOR ME----he had that hump that would crane his head and neck downwards. He tended towards a looser posture, but when he stood ramrod straight, there was no doubting he was a tall man. I suspect this hump is part of the reason why he's lost so much height from his youth. If you look at his legs in the 60s DOLLARS films, they are ungodly long--he has the legs of a 6'6" - 6'7" man. Even today in some photos, you can still see it: he still has those long legs. The height he's lost is from his torso.

His listings:
Early 50/late 80s: 6'4".
1992 (UNFORGIVEN): 6'3". Still noticeably taller than Hackman and Freeman.
2002 (BLOOD WORK): weak 6'3"/strong 6'2". A hair taller than strong 6'2" Jeff Daniels.
2004 (MILLION DOLLAR BABY): 6'2". About even with Morgan Freeman--Freeman just a hair taller.
2008 (GRAN TORINO): weak 6'2"/strong 6'1". 2" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch (Martin the Barber).
2012 (TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE): weak 6'1/strong 6'.

If you look at recent photos of him with Justin Timberlake and Leo DiCaprio, he only looks about an inch and perhaps a tiny bit of change taller than them--and both of them I believe to be under 6' (strong 5'10"/weak 5'11"). In the old days, had Timberlake and DiCaprio been around a young and in his prime Eastwood, he'd easily tower over both of them.

Rob, both your current and peak listings for Clint are spot on.

tb7
MOF says on 18/Jan/14
I met him and worked with him on a scene in Flags of our Fathers and he appeared 6'1" tops. I was surprised because he was always said to be this extremely tall guy. He must've lost some height but he was 184-185cm in 2005, no question.

Current listing is dead on. But I'm not sure that he ever was 6'4", even in his prime.
James says on 31/Dec/13
filmfan says on 31/Dec/13
I think the site has got it right. 6'4'' significant height loss about 6ft or thereabouts today. If you see recent clips of Clint his legs look really long compared to body, like he has lost height in torso. In films with big guys like George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland Clint looks similar in height. Perhaps you could say he was half an inch shorter or half an inch taller than either but close enough so little difference could be seen. The only thing that causes me to doubt this is the publicity shots for Mystic River where 6'5'' Tim Robbins appears to tower over Clint. Serious height loss maybe.


In eiger sanction Kennedy looked noticeably taller than clint in one scene. Maybe clint by that stage had lost a bit of height but then Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken by the time of that movie so he may have lost a but of height too?
filmfan says on 31/Dec/13
I think the site has got it right. 6'4'' significant height loss about 6ft or thereabouts today. If you see recent clips of Clint his legs look really long compared to body, like he has lost height in torso. In films with big guys like George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland Clint looks similar in height. Perhaps you could say he was half an inch shorter or half an inch taller than either but close enough so little difference could be seen. The only thing that causes me to doubt this is the publicity shots for Mystic River where 6'5'' Tim Robbins appears to tower over Clint. Serious height loss maybe.
Tony D says on 30/Dec/13
"Arch Stanton says on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie."

Arch, we are in agreement, in that movie (i've watched the whole thing) Eastwood looked at least as tall as Sutherland. Maybe you misread what i wrote.
James says on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.

He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".


Unlike in Dirty Harry magnum force was one of the movies where 6'4 looked believable. In dead pool I thought clint looked in the 6'2 range but looking and 'being' a certain height are 2 different things.


Arch unless we measure him we don't know for sure either if neeson was over 193cm peak. Don't forget there was one time when rob had Liam at 192cm.
James says on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.

He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".


Unlike in Dirty Harry magnum force was one of the movies where 6'4 looked believable. In dead pool I thought clint looked in the 6'2 range but looking and 'being' a certain height are 2 different things.


Arch unless we measure him we don't know for sure either if neeson was over 193cm peak. Don't forget there was one time when rob had Liam at 192cm.
James says on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.

Except that he had 2 inch cowboy boots on, had a 2 inch hairstyle and wore a cowboy hat as well. If he was a legit 6'4 barefoot he should have looked 6'7 or 6'8 in that film taking all factors into account. Yet the most he looked to me in that film was maybe 6'5.

Still would not argue against him being near the 6'4 mark at his peak. Although perhaps 193cm would have been his height at lunchtime.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
A Perfect World was 1993, he started to look 189-90 around that time in the mid 1990s if you seem him with Arnie.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.

He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
You'd guess him more at 180-90 pounds back in the 60s I agree.
Goose says on 29/Dec/13
My friend met him at his golf course/hotel and while my friend in about 5'10 he remarked Eastwood wasn't noticeably tall. I realize that's vague but it implies to me he probably under 6'2 at this point.
Arch Stanton says on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie.
James says on 27/Dec/13
I think he was no taller than 191cm in heartbreak ridge
Tony D says on 27/Dec/13
In Kelly's Heroes (1970) he doesn't look shorter than Sutherland youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY
Rob, what do you think?
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
Mark says on 26/Dec/13
If he really was a solid 6'4 in Coogans' Bluff, then we are talking about a guy, with cowboy boots, who was walking through that movie at six foot six inches, not counting puffy hair and a cowboy hat. I just don't buy it. I still say he was scraping 6'4 out of bed, on a good early day and at his most peakish moment (whatever that is), but more likely a bit over 6'3. A guy who was 6'4 with 2 inch healls ..especially in the 1960's, would not just be taller than alot of people, he would dwarf them. Eastwood was the former, not the latter.
James says on 26/Dec/13
Funny arch clint eastwood weighed 14 stone 3 in the 1960s. For 6'3.5-6'4 that is defo on the heavy side yet he always looked very slim. Maybe his very tall frame made him look slimmer perhaps?

By the time of dead pool he looked heavier since he worked out more and must have weighed 15 stone 6 by that stage. For 6'3 that is overweight yet still he did not look fat........
Arch Stanton says on 26/Dec/13
I think today he would acknowledge that he's shrunk a lot but when he said 6'4" back in 2003 I think he probably genuinely thought he was still that height and probably hadn't been measured in ages. You'd have expected him to realize though having shot Mystic River and standing next to Tim Robbins that he was no longer anywhere near it!!...
Tony G says on 25/Dec/13
Clint seemed about 3 inches taller than 6'1" David Soul in "Magnum Force."

Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Rob, 2003 isn't really "recently". I'm guessing that line has been up here since 2004!
[Editor Rob: not been updated since forever, although I will do it now :)]
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Jake: 1.83 m- 1.85 m says on 22/Dec/13
He was very very tall in Coogan's Bluff. Intimidatingly strode the streets of NYC donning a cowboy hats and boots; looking every bit of 6ft 4in.
johnmcc says on 21/Dec/13
He was taller than 6'2 Van Cleef in the spaghetti westerns so your estimate of 6'1 range is ridiculous.
Sam says on 20/Dec/13
6'1.5" at peak in his socks??? I want some of what you're smoking.
rowdy yatea says on 20/Dec/13
Clint was 6feet 1 1/2 inches tall in his socks. That's the reality. the evidence is clearly there through each decade. He stands around the 1.83m mark nowadays. 3in dowagers hump/bad back what the frack!!!!?????? Every other actor he worked with was under 5'10" mostly.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 18/Dec/13
Solid 6ft0.5/184cm now if not a weak 6ft1. I have a hard time believing he lost more than 3in. Chances are, IMO he wasn't quite 6ft4 except for as James pointed out, in the morning.
mcfan says on 16/Dec/13
Clint hasn't been 6'4 in ages. He looked 6-3 in the late 80s but he shrunk a couple of inches by the time he did Unforgiven.
ian c. says on 11/Dec/13
I'm going to go along with Eastwood at six foot four when young, but he had an inch and a half of hair and a head the size of a packing crate. By which I mean, other parts of him, like maybe his torso, are shorter than you might expect on a man that tall.
James says on 9/Dec/13
I think he would have measured 6'3.5 at night in the 60's/70s, 6'3.75 afternoon and 6'4 in the morning and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 out of bed.

Weak 6'4 guy at his peak
Jamie says on 5/Dec/13
Peak height: 6ft 4 (193 cm)
Current height: 6ft 0.5 (184 cm)

What is it with you people on here always labelling celebs smaller than their actual height.
Jake: 1.83 m- 1.85 m says on 29/Nov/13
Peak height: 6ft 3.75in (192 cm)
Current height: 6ft 0.75in (185 cm)
Maio says on 22/Nov/13
Peak Height: 6 ft 3 in/191 cm
Current Height: 6 ft 0.5 in/184 cm - 6 ft 0.75 in/185 cm
Arch Stanton says on 21/Nov/13
Yeah MD, 5'10.5-5'11" seems a good shout for Scott. Kyle looks near Clint's peak height I think but he can look shorter a lot.
MD says on 20/Nov/13
Arch, I think Scott is just under 5'11". There are some pics with him an Erin Heatherton, listed her as being 5'10.5". She's in some heeled boots, but not ridiculously heeled, and he's in regular gym shoes. It looks like if she was in flats, she's be as tall as him. I'm guessing him 5'10.5" to 5'10.75".
Arch Stanton says on 15/Nov/13
See you can see when he's stood straight Click Here that Kyle Eastwood looks near 6'4" as he claims. He's a bit nearer the camera than Pitt who probably has footwear advantage and Jolie is about 5'10" in heels.
Arch Stanton says on 15/Nov/13
See at times Kyle can look 6'4" Click Here and then look even a questionable 6'2" !! Click Here although you can see he's slumped posture. I think it has to do with posture. He really looks towering on stage. I doubt he's measure under 6'3" if stood straight.
Arch Stanton says on 15/Nov/13
I've seen photographs of his parents and neither of them look very tall and he doesn't look like them at all. Father possibly 6ft, mother maybe 5'5". I think he was just one of those anomalies, although he could have always had a very tall grandfather. Kyle Eastwood I think is actually near 6'4" but he can look more 6'2" range in a lot of photos. I've seen him on stage and he really does look near 6'4". Scott Eastwood on the other hand I'd say more 5'11, probably had an average-short mother.
filmfan says on 8/Nov/13
Looked same height as Gregory Walcott in movies they played in together. Gregory is stated as 6'4''.
jervis says on 3/Nov/13
In Bruce Almighty Carrey and Freeman looked almost the same hight,Freeman maybe half an inch taller than Carrey.So Ali your saying Cage is 5ft9 and since Connery was about 2 inches taller than him in the Rock,that Connery was only 5ft11,I dont think so.
Arch Stanton says on 2/Nov/13
So based on your rule of thumb Ali Chuck Connors was 6'3.5, Christopher Lee 6'2", Gary Copper 6' (claimed 6'2), Vincent Price 6'2, Sean Connery 5'11.5", Rock Hudson 6'1.5" etc.
Arch Stanton says on 2/Nov/13
Ali, Freeman was barely taller than Carey in Bruce Almighty. An inch at the very most.
Ali says on 1/Nov/13
Arch what are you talking about? Morgan Freeman is not slightly taller
than Carrey. Freeman is about 6'1.5 Has 2 inches or more on Carrey.

Federer at 6'1 was clearly taller than Will Smith. So smith is about 6'0. Smith was taller than Hackman. Ive seen the movie many times.

Hollywood actors add 2 inches to their height. This is common knowledge.
Clint was no 6'4. Maybe 6'3. Personally I think 189cm. Great height. In hollywood
at that height you are a giant. Actors are short in general .
jervis says on 1/Nov/13
There is a photo of Tim Robbins,Forest Whitker and Clint together in witch Whitker is a bit taller than Clint,Whitkers eye level is just above clints.But on the same page a photo of clint with Whitker taken about 25 years ago Whitkers eye level is just under Clints nose.If you put the younger clint with the old he would only about 1 inch off Robbins
Arch Stanton says on 31/Oct/13
LOL if Jim Carrey is 5'11" Morgan Freeman is struggling with a flat 6'!!
zapes says on 31/Oct/13
Clint was every bit of 6'4" when I met him at his tavern in Carmel, and I'm more than 6'5". He was in his 50's then and he stood a ramrod straight 1" shorter than me. Hell of a good guy, too.
Sam says on 30/Oct/13
Ali, Hackman and Smith look almost the same exact height and Hackman was near 70 at that point...
Click Here
Click Here
and wheres the evidence of Carrey being 5'11" or even 5'11.5"? Here's Carrey clearly at least an inch taller than Nicholas Cage and not much more than an inch shorter than Jeff Daniels.
Click Here
Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 30/Oct/13
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Oct/13
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Oct/13
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".

Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
Mark says on 29/Oct/13
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Richie says on 25/Oct/13
Doubters! Watch the documentary "Out of the Shadows" on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray dvd. A still from 1:17:02 with 6'2" Jim Carrey-a clear 2 inches on Carrey. 2nd still at 1:17:10 with a 5'10" Prince Charles-towers over him even with a crappy posture. Get real people: he was 6'4" in his prime!
Ali says on 18/Oct/13
Gene Hackman was clearly shorter than Will Smith, who in his turn
was about 0.5-1 inch shorter than Roger Federer who is 6'1. Nothing
ignorant about that.

Jim Carrey at 6'1.5 is hilarious, but knowing that hollywood
actors add 2 inches, that makes him 5'11.5.
Clint fan says on 17/Oct/13
Bob, how do you know that Eastwood was 6'3.5 when younger and that he recently had back surgery? Neither of these have been publicly reported. What is your source for this information? Do you happen to know Mr. Eastwood?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 17/Oct/13
Ali, your ignorance is beyond compare. Jim Carrey is 6ft1.5 and Hackman was without a doubt 6ft2.
bob says on 15/Oct/13
Those who mention back issues for Clint are partly right. Clint was a very good 6' 3.5 when younger. Several years ago he had back surgery including disc removal. He currently reaches around 6'1" barefoot. Yes age can cause shortening of the spinal column through a lower amount of fluid. However this does not happen to thpse who exercise the bacl sufficoently throigh a series of stretching exercises. I'm still 6'4" at the age of 65.
Rusty says on 14/Oct/13
I saw a 6'3" 185 lbs listing for Eastwood before. He never gave the same kind of 6'4" impression Neeson did. He was over 6'3" for certain, but not sure about 6'4".
Gerry says on 13/Oct/13
Anyone who thinks Clint was not 6'4" in his younger days should watch the Eiger Sanction more closely. He is nose to nose with Greg Walcott in one scene, side by side with George Kennedy in several & matches them exactly. They are both 6'4, unless everyone in Hollywood adds exactly 2 inches to their real height-and what are the odds of that?????
Sam says on 11/Oct/13
Greg's photo is definitely a weird one...the shortest seeming a young Eastwood has looked. As to Ali, Jim Carrey is not 5'11" and there's no reason to disbelieve Gene Hackman was near 6'2" at his peak...if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
qartt says on 11/Oct/13
terrible photo greg, buddy looks a foot taller.

Click Here
why not compare eastwood to forest whitaker in 1988. he actually still looks 6'4 if whitaker is 6'2. Clint might not be 6'4 in 1988 but he is close.
Greg says on 10/Oct/13
Does Eastwood really look an inch taller than 6'3" Buddy Ebson here, taken in 1965?
Click Here
Ali says on 9/Oct/13
Rampage in the 1992 movie with Morgan Freeman, Clint is clearly shorter. I think the movies name
is unforgiven. Look for it and check the pictures. Clint is clearly about an inch or so shorter.

Jim Carrey is not tall. About a strong 5'11. Sure on this site he is 6'1.

Liam Neeson is definitely a tall guy about 6'3 6'4.

Gene Hackman was never 6'2. 6'2 for Hackman is hilarious.

Remember most hollywood heights are real height+2 inches.
Arch Stanton says on 9/Oct/13
Yeah Neeson had about an inch on him in Dead Pool, he was around 6'3" up until 1993 I think. He looked a good 6'3 in Pink Cadillac too. He looked between 6'2" and 6'3 in Madison County which was 1995.
thebad7 says on 9/Oct/13
One other comment: Clint's height loss really didn't become noticeable to me until about 2000. In 1988's THE DEAD POOL, Clint stands face-to-face with a young Liam Neeson--whom I believe to be 6'4 1/2" - weak 6'5" at the time--and he's only 1/2" - 1" shorter, placing Clint in the strong 6'3"/weak 6'4" range. Furthermore, he's still noticeably taller than Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in 1992's UNFORGIVEN--and I believe both Hackman and Freeman to have been strong 6'2" men even at that time. Clint appears at least 1" taller than both of them, and all the actors are sporting cowboy boots.

By the time of BLOOD WORK in 2002, it's clear that Clint has lost a few inches. He looks a strong 6'2" at the most in that film, and he appears to stay in the 6'2" range through MILLION DOLLAR BABY a few years later. In GRAN TORINO in 2008, he looks to be a weak 6'2"/strong 6'1" and in photos he took with Sidney Poitier and Morgan Freeman around 2011, Clint looks 6'1" next to weak 6'2" Poitier and Freeman. Today, at 83, Clint is probably 6'1" flat immediately out of bed after a good night's sleep and 6' 1/2" for most of the day.

tb7
thebad7 says on 9/Oct/13
Rob, I posted this a few years ago, and I hope you'll post it again: the definitive proof can be found in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE in the scene that takes place at the indoor pistol range. Here, Clint is introduced to the young vigilante traffic cops played by David Soul, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven, and Robert Urich. Both Matheson and Urich are 6'2", Niven is about 6'1", and Soul is about 6'. You'll notice Clint walks down an incline from the lot wearing flat-soled sneakers while the rookies are all wearing knee-length Red Wing style boots with a 1" heel. Despite their footwear advantage, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson and Urich by about 2". In particular, Matheson is the best gauge as he shoots Clint's S&W Model 29 and both stand nose to nose. Even with less than perfect posture, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson--and Urich as Urich is identical in height to Matheson.

Further evidence can be found in 1974's THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT. Clint has at least 2"--and probably a bit of change--on 6'2" Jeff Bridges--and he is the same height as 6'4" George Kennedy--with both men wearing identical dress shoes. There are scenes in which Clint stands face-to-face with both actors--Clint is clearly taller than Bridges, and virtually identical with Kennedy.

Today is a different story; time catches us all. As late as three years ago, Clint was pushing 6'2"; today in 2013, he can barely scrape 6'1". In recent photos, he barely looks taller than Justin Timberlake or Leo DiCaprio--both of whom I believe to be under 6' and more likely strong 5'10"/weak 5'11".

Peak: 6'4" (early 50s - late 80s).
2013, at 83: 6' 1/2" - 6'1" first thing in the morning; weak 6' by bedtime.

tb7
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Oct/13
@Ali: excuse me...he was 2in taller than a young Jim Carrey in 1987 and was barely edged out by a then strong 6ft4 Liam Neeson (Deadpool). By the mid 90s he was still taller than legit 6ft2 guys like Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman (Unforgiven).

Don't even mention his peak height. The iconic footage of him and Lee Van Cleef (not under 6ft2) speaks for itself.
Ali says on 3/Oct/13
One more things guys. In 1990 Clint is already like 60 years old. At that age one loses
about 1 inch, but Clint had back issues and has already lost 2 inches. He aged quite rapidly
if you ask me. I think he has lost in total about 3-4 inches.

Look at his upper body in pictures when he was young and when he was over 60. His upper body
looks much smaller. This makes it look like he has very long legs. It is clear that clint has lost at least
2.5-3inches.

Even in the picture with Selleck, Clint looks like he has lost a little bit of height.

There is no way Clint stands 6ft1 these days. He looks 5'11.5. Add 3-4 inches
that he has lost and you get something like 6'3. Maybe he was 6'2.5 which is a
great height.
Ali says on 3/Oct/13
Guys Clint was a tall guy in his prime. I am thinking 6'3 peak. 6'4 is too much.
The thing is that Clint lost height early in his career I think. He had/has back problems.

Has Clint ever commented on his back problems?
Arch Stanton says on 3/Oct/13
@Bazzer In 1989 James Cromwell looked way taller than Clint Eastwood in Pink Cadillac. 6'4 next to his peak of 6'6.5"-6'6.75" looked impossible to me. Eastwood looked 6'3" in Pink Cadillac as he did throughout most of the 80s.
Arch Stanton says on 3/Oct/13
Strange but in 1989 in Pink Cadillac Eastwood looked a good 2 inches shorter than Gary Howard Klar. He was wearing cowboy boots but Klar was supposedly only 6'3". That film has so many tall guys, a number in the film are taller than Clint.
Bazzer says on 1/Oct/13
I was in Carmel in the summer of 1989 & was in the Hog's Breath Inn, which he part owned at the time, when he walked in as we were leaving. Me & my mate are both legitimate 6'1" (accurately measured, as we are in the UK Police Force) & he had a good 3 inches on us. We said hello but were too star struck to say much else! He was seriously tall & also large with it. All this nonsense about never being 6'4" is just that-utter nonsense. It's not uncommon that big guys like him suffer with posture problems later in life
Arch Stanton says on 1/Oct/13
Rob do you think 179-180cm looks about right for Scott? Click Here The strange thing though is that Kyle barely looks 6'2" in that photo but seeing him on stage in jazz concerts he really does look near Clint's peak height and towers above the other musicians.
Arch Stanton says on 1/Oct/13
@Wiven. His son probably claims 6' or 6'1" I'd imagine but he really looks nothing over 5 ft 11 and is noticeably shorter than a shrunken Clint at 83. Like Clint though I think Scott is the sort of guy who'll look better in his late 30s and 40s than he does now at 27.

All heights are barefeet Estimates, derived from quotations by celebrities, official websites, agency resumes, actors I've met at conventions and pictures/films.

Vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been taken from quotes by the actors themselves in interviews, resumes or articles.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.