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'.
Add your opinion on the Height of Clint Eastwood

Your Comment:

James B says on 19/Sep/14
Sam says on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.

I kinda like that film.

On a different note clint claiming "6ft4" a little over a decade ago is just as bizarre as his 'chair' speech.
Sam says on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.
James B says on 19/Sep/14
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?
[Editor Rob: it's hard to believe that one.]
Danimal says on 18/Sep/14
Tim Robbins from 20 years ago who is not even standing straight (in the first pic) had at least 3" on THEN 6'3" Morgan Freeman (who also claimed to be 6'4" in his youth) and even had close to 4" on him in other pics:

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

I will admit, that Tim is looking closer to 6'5" TODAY at 55 years old than he did at 30-35 years old, but 20-25 years ago, he was minimum 6'6", if not 6'7" out of bed.
Sam says on 18/Sep/14
Well, "a big 6'4" guy". A majority of these pictures have already been on here. There are some pictures where he does indeed look more a weak-to-strong 6'3":
w/ 6'4" Gregory Walcott Click Here
w/ 6'3" Michael Moriaty (not standing even, at times in Pale Rider Clint could look near an inch over him) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Gene Hackman Click Here
w/ 6'1.5" Jeff Bridges (bad shot, both are dropping height) Click Here
w/ 6'0.5" David Soul Click Here
w/ 6'4" Liam Neeson (again not the best) Click Here
w/ 6'3" Buddy Ebsen (there Clint even looks sub-6'3", weird shot) Click Here
But then, there's occasions where IMO he could really pass as 6'4"
w/ 6'2" Lee Marvin Click Here
w/ 6'4" George Kennedy (Kennedy's dropping more) Click Here
w/ 6'5" Rock Hudson & 6'3.75" John Wayne Click Here
w/ 6'4" John Gavin Click Here
w/ 6'4" Donald Sutherland Click Here
w/ 6'2" Lee Van Cleef (both dropping height, more so Van Cleef) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Forest Whitaker (Clint has advantage in postion but still hard to see anything near 6'3") Click Here
You could argue 6'3"-6'4" range, maybe 6'3.75" like Wayne but generally a flat 6'3" doesn't fit Eastwood pre-height loss!
James B says on 17/Sep/14
Andrea I do agree 6'4 does seem hard to imagine for clint Eastwood but 6'3 range seems easier to picture.. When I think of 6'4 someone like Steven Seagal pops in my head.

Saw escape from Alcatraz last night and in that film clint looked 6'3-6'3.5 range in that movie for sure.
James B says on 17/Sep/14
Danimal- robbins looks closer to 6'4 than 6'6 with del toro

Click Here
Danimal says on 17/Sep/14
James B says on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.

No. You shouldn't speak for everyone like that. I think Tim Robbins is at least 6'6" because he had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien, Over 3" on 6'2.5" listed John Cusack and the list goes on.
Danimal says on 17/Sep/14
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70

Past 70? He's almost 85 years old.
Danimal says on 17/Sep/14
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70

Pat 70? He's almost 85 years old.
Andrea says on 17/Sep/14
I admit i've never seen any movies of him when he was young... But was he really a big 6'4 guy? I mean, when i think to big 6'4 guys i think to a Jared Padalecki or Alexander Skargard, who always look very tall. It seems Arch is really convinced he was near that mark and he usually is very good in estimating heights... Today he looks 6' range, how did he lose 4 inches?
Arch Stanton says on 16/Sep/14
Me too Sam. I highly recommend Jersey Boys his latest BTW, I don't know why critics didn't think much of it. It's very well made IMO.
Sam says on 15/Sep/14
That link doesn't work for me, Arch. There's a good chance Clint was 6'3.75" for a beter of the day like Wayne.

I doubt Eastwood himself would put himself near the level as Day-Lewis, De Niro, Nicholson or Pacino, but I think as a director, he's good at recognizing acting talent in others. I respect him most as a director, secondarily as an actor and least as a politican (ignoring his love life on purpose!)
James B says on 13/Sep/14
A 6'3 1/2 clint eastwood would mean Donald Sutherland was 6'3 flat.
James B says on 13/Sep/14
Cant upload your pic arch.
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70, and you have 6' to 6'1. As for acting, if someone is both believable and entertaining in a role, they're a good actor in my book. I don't care about range, or if they can cry or if they are really just playing themselves. If I believe them and am entertained (Eastwood in his Dirty harry movies, or comedies), it's good acting. Most Acadamy Award winners are boring actors, to me.
Arch Stanton says on 13/Sep/14
Click Here
James B says on 12/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.


Easy 2 inches? I am starting to suspect thst Connery could have been 6'1.75 peak. If Donald was that much taller then it would mean by 1987 Connery was 6'1-6'1.25 range.
Arch Stanton says on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.
James B says on 11/Sep/14
Clint in his prime could have been 2 inches taller than a peak sean Connery believe it or not. I am skeptical of the 6'2 1/2 claims for Connery since by the end of 70s he was looking 2 inches shorter than Sutherland. High chance sean was 6'1.5 by 1978.

Arch has pointed out that clint edged out Donald in Kelly's heroes which is decent evidence that clint Eastwood truly was 6'4. Donald was like 35 in that film so unlikely he was dropping height by that stage? In invasion of the body snatchers jeff goldblum looked near 6'4 1/2 in comparison to Sutherland i think?

192cm is always possible for clint but for the time timebeing...........

Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm)
Arch Stanton says on 11/Sep/14
As an actor of course Eastwood was never anywhere near as talented as the like of Daniel Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, De Niro and Al Pacino for instance, and Sergio Leone was all too aware of that, but as a film star with a unique identity he's certainly right up there with the biggest film actors of all time and most of his films are the sort you can watch again and again so that says it all.
Arch Stanton says on 11/Sep/14
Yeha Sam I agree. I don't think Kyle or Scott come close to a peak Clint in looks. The thing is though Eastwood was never the best actor, certainly not a natural. A lot of his mannerisms are unintentional (like hissing his lines through his teeth etc) are just the way he was. I think in a lot of his roles he was being himself or at least exaggerating his true self which didn't require much exacting. I think his acting came through more in his more comic roles actually. He hit his peak as an actor in the 90s I think with some impressive performances but it is as a director he has been become accomplished I feel. Connery was never the greatest of actors either, but he had that leading man charisma and presence. Clint never had the smooth charm of Connery or Grant, but he definitely had that thing in a more rugged way. I'd put Cary Grant above both of them as an actor, his comic timing especially was brilliant but as Sam says you can't really compare them, they were three different actors, I don't think you can really compare any of them. They were unique and great for different reasons and great in the types of roles that they played. Clint was never intended as a romantic leading man type.
Arch Stanton says on 11/Sep/14
I don't know James, I suppose it is because they're far enough away from average that it becomes harder to guess. You know what it's like guessing people over 6 ft 8. The margin of error is greater. Over 6'4" guessing becomes more difficult.
Sam says on 11/Sep/14
Hmm, not sure what you mean on any of that...
Scott may be have more traditional good looks, if not his presence, charisma or directorial talent, but Kyle handsomer than Clint? I don't think so. Also, contend with Cary Grant? Cary Grant retired the same year that Clint got his breakthrough in A Fistfull of Dollars and they were 100% different kinds of actors/stars. Also, compared, Entertainment Weekly's list of 100 Greatest Movie Stars of all time listed Clint at 16 and Sean at 24...so, I think Eastwood more than contends with Connery in general.
James B says on 9/Sep/14
Kyle inherited clint eastwoods height and Scott inherited clint eastwoods good looks. That said Kyle facially is a bit better looking that his dad was in his prime and Clint was more notorious for his westerns and Dirty Harry films than his looks. He did have charisma, charm and height on his side but he still could not contend with leading men like Cary Grant or Sean Connery
James B says on 9/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.


Why?
qartt says on 9/Sep/14
Rob why not add Kyle Eastwood. There are plenty of photos of kyle and clint back in 1988 when Kyle was 20, they looked pretty much the same size then.
Arch Stanton says on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.
James B says on 8/Sep/14
True Arch but clint was a proper 6'3-6'3.5 range barefoot in the 80s and you wouldn't guess him at 6'5 would you? I guess as well clint wasn't skinny but even in earlier films when he was slimmer did not look over 6'4.
Arch Stanton says on 8/Sep/14
Yeah James, a proper 6'4.5" barefoot will probably look 6'6" to most people anyway. And it's true that a lot of people underestimate how big a real 6'4.5-6'5" is. Just look at Guy Henry as your dad said!... My dad guessed Colin Salmon at 6'6 too!
James B says on 7/Sep/14
6'3 James brolin is taller then clint in this pic
Click Here
James B says on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.
moe says on 5/Sep/14
Jame B is wrong. I've met Tim Robbins twice. He runs the Actor's Gang in Culver City and is a strong 6'5. Go down there and meet him for yourself.
James B says on 5/Sep/14
How tall would u say robbins is today then rob?
[Editor Rob: possibly a fraction less, not a huge amount though, just a little.]
James B says on 5/Sep/14
You think robbins is not as tall as you originally thought rob?
[Editor Rob: he's probably at a stage where he could shrink a fraction.]
James B says on 5/Sep/14
Robbins is closer to 6'5 than a flat 6'4 but common danimal he ain't over 6'5 like you say he is. These days 6'4.5 at night is likely for tim robbins.
[Editor Rob: Robbins looking Average. Howard stern Laughing at Robbins 6ft 5 claim.]
Sam says on 5/Sep/14
@James, I'd question even the full inch difference between Neeson and Eastwood there, maybe 0.5-0.75 advantage for Neeson IMO.
Sam says on 5/Sep/14
@Arch Yeah, he was a frightening looking dude...I watched Twin Peaks and McGill as a decent guy in that he reminded me a bit of Robert Ryan in his good guy roles.
Bill says on 5/Sep/14
I would have thought he'd still be around 6'2. I had no idea you could lose that much height.

Is that common?
Arch Stanton says on 5/Sep/14
I think by 1988 he could look a bit over 6 ft 3 next to a bit over 6 ft 4 peak Neeson. He certainly didn't look 6'4" next to James Cromwell. But he could look near it still at times in some of his early 90s films.
Danimal says on 5/Sep/14
Rick says on 9/Aug/14
Clint Eastwood with 6'4" Tim Robbins

Click Here

Tim Robbins is not 6'4". He had several inches on Morgan Freeman. Is substantially taller than 6'2.5"-6'3" John Cusack and was noticeably taller than 6'4" Conan Obrien.
James B says on 4/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 4/Sep/14
@Sam I once read 6 ft 5 for McGill on imdb and after seeing him in License to Kill and Under Siege 2 I honestly didn't question it, he looked a few inches taller than Davi to me. One of the scariest looking dudes on screen, those eyes creep me out!

Arch do you think clint shrunk from 6'3.5 to 6'3 flat between 1986-1988? Because he was clearly shorter than liam neeson in deapool.
Arch Stanton says on 4/Sep/14
@Sam I once read 6 ft 5 for McGill on imdb and after seeing him in License to Kill and Under Siege 2 I honestly didn't question it, he looked a few inches taller than Davi to me. One of the scariest looking dudes on screen, those eyes creep me out!
Sam says on 3/Sep/14
I forgot about Heartbreak Ridge, I kind of liked it, a bit underrated but I recall it loses steam near the end. Not the best shot considering Eastwood's camera advantage, but definitively was taller than McGill. McGill was a big imposing guy, at times in other roles I thought he was 6'3"+ but he has to be a weak 6'3" compared to Clint.
Click Here
James B says on 2/Sep/14
Yeah in magnum force looked 6ft4 at times but he also looked 6'3 as well in that film which is why I think he was between those 2 heights.
James B says on 31/Aug/14
We don't know McGills official height cause he is not listed on this site. 6'3.5 consistent in the 80s? Remember 6'4 Liam Neeson had 1 inch or so on him in dead pool and in heartbreak ridge he stood with military posture where I think McGill had more relaxed posture.
James B says on 31/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!


Slightly disagree Arch when he had on his officer uniform in that film he look slim/skinny. When he wore his tank top though he looked ripped and muscular. Personally i think in films like deapool, pink caddlilic and any which you can he looked really bulky and tough. In good the bad and ugly he looked well built also.

In heartbreak ridge his characters personality was as tough as hell that's for sure.
berta says on 31/Aug/14
he could still look 6 fot 1 if he standing tall. peak a little over 6 foot 3
Arch Stanton says on 31/Aug/14
Eastwood looked about an inch taller than Everett McGill in Heartbreak who is supposed to be 6'2.5" so 6'3.5 for mid 80s is consistent with Pale Rider and Dead Pool...
Arch Stanton says on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!
Arch Stanton says on 30/Aug/14
Looked near 6'4" and 220 pounds odd in Heartbreak Ridge.
James B says on 18/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 18/Aug/14
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.


Haven't seen white Hunter. I think clint could look shorter than he really was in reality in a lot of his movies and to me he gave of the vibe of a guy who is between 6'2-6'3 in Line of Fire.

I mean just look show much shorter he looks next to Lady Di compared to 6'4 Tom selleck in the 80s.

Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 18/Aug/14
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.
James B says on 15/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 14/Aug/14
That's funny though James because he had around 4 inches on his co star who is listed at 6ft!


Was he sill 6'4 in lone of fire?
Arch Stanton says on 14/Aug/14
That's funny though James because he had around 4 inches on his co star who is listed at 6ft!
Anonymous1 says on 13/Aug/14
Hold the phone, here. Forget Robbins for a minute. Look at Eastwood next to Fishburne, in that photo posted by Rick. Eastwood has 2 to 3 inches on Fishburne, who is listed here, as anywhere between 5'10 and 6'0. Could it e Eastwood is still over 6 foot? But then again, Robbins looks huge next to him.
James B says on 12/Aug/14
Just my opinion but I really thought in the Line of Fire that clint looked 6'2 1/2. He did not look a proper 6'3 guy in that film.
Pip says on 12/Aug/14
Great pic from Rick...clearly shows his horrendous posture....Straighten him up & he'd be 6'4". Also, Robbins is a lot taller than that! He's 6'6
James B says on 10/Aug/14
Robbins more 6'5 than 6'4
Rick says on 9/Aug/14
Clint Eastwood with 6'4" Tim Robbins

Click Here
Danimal says on 9/Aug/14
I wonder if Clint is conscious of the fact that he no longer (and hasn't for quite some time) towered over people the way he did in the past. Must feel strange to once have been 6'4" and now 6'0". You're staring eye to eye with another 6 footer, knowing that once you would have had 4" on that person. I wonder if it enters his mind?
Sam says on 8/Aug/14
Never have seen that scene with the very young Clint next to Rock Hudson...he looks a solid 6'4" IMO compared to Hudson there.
James B says on 8/Aug/14
I guess his bad posture is why he often didn't look 6'4 in his film.

Like rob said 6'3 1/2 isn't impossible for his peal
Pip says on 8/Aug/14
Clint has always had a really bad posture & at 84 looks as if his chest has folded into his stomach, as well as his spine clearly bending to the side (the right). This would easily give a height loss of around 4 inches. I agree with comments made before ie how many 6'2" actors has he consistently been taller than by 2"? Either they are all lying by 2" or he was 6'4".....the latter is right. Also, he is the same height in every scene with Walcott in Joe Kidd on level ground
James B says on 7/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 7/Aug/14
Really doesn't suit him does it...


Wouldent catch his dad with a hairstyle like that
Arch Stanton says on 7/Aug/14
Really doesn't suit him does it...
James B says on 6/Aug/14
Yeah he does look just like clint and a lot it is to do with the hairstyle.

Iarch is It just me or does Scott eastwood look like a 90s david Beckham when he has curtains HA HA HA
Click Here
Arch Stanton says on 6/Aug/14
Hey James check out the cover of Click Here Looks just like Clint in Play Misty for Me doesn't it! you almost expect him to spring up and say "Get off my back Evelyn!".
James B says on 5/Aug/14
Arch - in some parts of hang em high clint Eastwood in terms of build reminded me a little of Jeff goldblum in the lost world. He didn't look quite as tall as Jeff but you know that long legged 'tall and lanky'' vibe.

In the the late 70s and onwards that is when he started too look less proportioned since his torso was in the early stages of shrinking by that stage.
Arch Stanton says on 5/Aug/14
Eastwood would never have touched roids. Seagal looked about 180 in Above the Law and yeah 230-240 in the 90s.
James B says on 3/Aug/14
Ach- Seagal was actually much thinner than eastwood was in above the law. I heard he weighed between 12-13 stone in above the law whereas as clint weighed over 200 pounds. Clint was probably slightly shorter than Seagal as well.

By the time of out for justice though he must have weighed like 16 stone? Probably was around 16 or 17 stone for most of the 90s. And by the early 2000s was over well over 17 stone. He defo gained a lot of weight from 1988-1990.

Clint eastwood weighed between 15 and 16 stone in deapool and technically that's overweight for a 6'3 guy but that was probably all muscle or steroids? Unlike Seagal clint always kept himself in good physical shape.
Arch Stanton says on 3/Aug/14
Seagal generally looks about an inch taller I think than Eastwood ever did but it's his girth as well which can give the impression of a much bigger guy.
James B says on 2/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 2/Aug/14
Didn't Challenger 13 measure something like 6'3.4 though?? I doubt Clint was that low. James, I think he gives a strong 6'5" impression in boots in that scene. It's pure guesswork though, we'll never know his exact barefoot height so we're only likely to go around in circles! Most comparisons to actually point to a full 6'4". rather than 6'3.5".

Do you agree arch he looks taller than Steven Seagal ever looked in that one scene
Arch Stanton says on 2/Aug/14
Didn't Challenger 13 measure something like 6'3.4 though?? I doubt Clint was that low. James, I think he gives a strong 6'5" impression in boots in that scene. It's pure guesswork though, we'll never know his exact barefoot height so we're only likely to go around in circles! Most comparisons to actually point to a full 6'4". rather than 6'3.5".
filmfan says on 1/Aug/14
With that now famous clip of Hudson and Eastwood they look similar in height although Hudson has a bigger frame. Hudson was at least 6'4'' and some say he was taller. I do think Eastwood must have been close to 6'4''.
James B says on 31/Jul/14
If you put a peak clint eastood under robs stadiometer he'd measure shy of 193cm. Hundred percent certain on that or basically not a legit 6'4.

I actually think a peak clint would measure similar to height challenger 13.
Gramps says on 30/Jul/14
Peak: 6-4
Today: 6-1 In several promo and production photos from this year's Jersey Boys, Clint looks about 2" shorter than the 6-3 Erich Bergen and about 2" taller than the 5-11 Vincent Piazza.
James B says on 29/Jul/14
Sorry here's the scene

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qK8-liiew
James B says on 29/Jul/14
He looks nearly as tall as Hudson in that scene

Arch go to to around 1:38 in this scene from coogans bluff


His legs look very long but more to the point do you agree arch he looks around 6ft5 in that scene? Of course his clothing, heels, and hairstlye are obviously making him look taller. Take all that away and he wouldn't look anywhere near that big. Can't decide if he looks 6'6 or 6'5 in that particular scene? Clearly he looks taller than 6'3 there that's for sure.

Lol this film was made the same year as hang em high where he could look 6ft at times.
Arch Stanton says on 29/Jul/14
Yeah that's an odd one, actually he looks more 6 ft walking there and his legs don't look lanky!!
Parker says on 29/Jul/14
Go to 1.15 to those who haven't seen a young Clint next to Rock Hudson.
Click Here
James B says on 27/Jul/14
Oh yeah arch no denying he looked taller than 6'3 in that scene in the enforcer. He didn't look dissimilar to Christopher's lees heights in fact that particular part of the film.

Arch would you say clint looks around 6'2 in this scene from hang em high?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lvwZgq4ydc

Of course in all his films from the 70s never looked anything under 6'3.
Arch Stanton says on 26/Jul/14
James, like that scene in The Enforcer I think it was when he walked across the street to the store to the guys who ask him to "spread eagle", you can imagine him measuring 195cm in shoes there couldn't you?
Arch Stanton says on 26/Jul/14
The only thing, and I agree with you on this James with what you said in the past, for a proper 6 ft 4 guy, with his big quiff hairstyle, cowboy boots/hat, you'd expect him to look 6'6-6'7" in his westerns yet he never really looked over 6 ft 5 in boots did he? At times he could look 6'6 in boots like the store scene in Outlaw Josey or in GBU where he gets off the horse, walking towards the camp on the side of the bridge but generally he looked about 6 ft 5 in boots. Now cowboy boots give 1.5 -2 inches. You could imagine him measuring 6'3.5" without I suppose. He was supposed to have been measured in the 60s for a waxwork in Dollars garb including boots though which I've read he measured 6'5.5. You can see in his 70s films that he was genuinely at worst a solid 6'3". Somewhere between 191 and 193 is arguable, but there's no way he was under 6'3", too lanky. And most comparisons actually point to a full 6'4" rather than 6'3" range anyway..
James B says on 23/Jul/14
Arch if I did not know clints height and if someone said he was 6'5 in play misty for me I would not question it.
James B says on 23/Jul/14
I think he was being honest when he was measured at 6 ft 4 in his last year in school or something and there was only one kid in the school taller at 6 ft 5. I think most of us (except James) agree he looked in that 6'3.5-6'4" range in the 60s and 70s. Also if you consider his lanky build to weigh 205-216 pounds as he did he'd have to be very tall with decent muscle mass to weigh that on a lanky frame. Hasselhoff at 6'4" is a naturally well built guy and a meso unlike Clint and weighs only 191 pounds.

Arch you misunderstand me in the 70s he never looked anything less than 6'3 range but I was just saying in his later movies from the 80s he started to look slightly under 6'3 'AT TIMES.' Granted there was the occasional moment in hang em high where he looked under 6'3.
Arch Stanton says on 23/Jul/14
I think he was being honest when he was measured at 6 ft 4 in his last year in school or something and there was only one kid in the school taller at 6 ft 5. I think most of us (except James) agree he looked in that 6'3.5-6'4" range in the 60s and 70s. Also if you consider his lanky build to weigh 205-216 pounds as he did he'd have to be very tall with decent muscle mass to weigh that on a lanky frame. Hasselhoff at 6'4" is a naturally well built guy and a meso unlike Clint and weighs only 191 pounds.
Arch Stanton says on 23/Jul/14
James B says on 16/Jul/14
Where do the 6'2 estimates for clint come from?

You!!
jervis says on 17/Jul/14
Strong 6ft3 or weak 6ft4 peak.
James B says on 16/Jul/14
Where do the 6'2 estimates for clint come from?
Sam says on 15/Jul/14
Agree with Rob, a weak 6'4", woke up a bit over 6'4", could have been 6'3.5" range by afternoon...there's no way he peaked as low as 6'3" or under at full height IMO just to consistent too tall in comparison to other tall men like Sutherland, George Kennedy and that all star line-up including Hudson.
James B says on 11/Jul/14
Rob sometime in the future will you consider downgrading clints peak to 6'3 1/2 like you did with Donald sutherland. Or are you convinced he was the full 6'4?
[Editor Rob: both 6ft 3.5 and 4 are arguable peaks for him]
Gonzalo says on 10/Jul/14
Sam says on 8/Jul/14
Cool to see Clint with James Stewart, but I don't see it as proof that Clint was 6'3".
So, Sam, what`s your guess about Eastwood?
He was as tall as George Kennedy, not much shorter than Rock Hudson. IMO in his prime he looked in the 1`93 area
James B says on 8/Jul/14
I find hard to believe as well that a peak clint would have had 2 inches on jackman
Sam says on 8/Jul/14
Cool to see Clint with James Stewart, but I don't see it as proof that Clint was 6'3".
Gonzalo says on 7/Jul/14
Clint Eastwood and James Stewart
Click Here
Iosu says on 6/Jul/14
Click Here

Clint and James
crazy cajun says on 6/Jul/14
Clint was never 6'4 . 6'3 or 6'3 1/2 at most. His lanky build and thick bushy hair made him look about 1 inch taller than he really was . In million dollar baby he looked about 2 inches shorter than 6'2 Morgan Freeman . So nothing over 6 feet now .
jervis says on 6/Jul/14
There is a photo of Clint with James Stewart Clint is about 60 in it and Stewart 82.Clint has about 2 inches on Stewart.At 60 Clint would have been around 6ft3,the same as Stewarts peek.lts just an example of how much hight you can lose in old age.Stewart looks to have lost about 2 inches from his peak.Also Clints posture can change his hight a lot in photos in bad posture he can look 2 inches shorter thann when he stands stright,I think that is a very important thing to remember when judging Clints hight.
Arch Stanton says on 6/Jul/14
jervis says on 3/Jul/14
Its hard to belive that the young Clint would have 2inches on Jackman.

Why? Clint's much more lankier in the leg.~~~~
nrbobh5344 says on 3/Jul/14
In 'Million Dollar Baby' Clint walks with 6'2" Brian O'Byrne (the priest) and he is about 1 inch shorter than Brian. Seems like Clint was about 6'1"-ish in 2004.
jervis says on 3/Jul/14
Its hard to belive that the young Clint would have 2inches on Jackman.Clint was a weak 6ft4 in his younger days to me know less than 6ft3,but in the photo with Jackman looks bearly 6ft.For a man who held his own against the likes of George Kenedey and Rock Hudson and now is bearly taller than Brad Pitt its a lot of hight loss.l think it was all that bad posture in his younger days
caused his hight loss.Liam Neeson is heading that way to because his posture is very bad too.
James B says on 2/Jul/14
Clint would defo have been no taller than 192cm at night in his prime
filmfan says on 2/Jul/14
I can buy 6'4'' but I do think he was at the lower end of the mark, where 6'3'' goes to 6'4'' rather than where 6'4'' goes to 6'5''. I know people dispute this but I thought George Kennedy was a little taller in 2 films they made together.
Greg says on 30/Jun/14
I think he lost height over the years, accelerated recently - I don't think that's real unusual, though some people do keep their height into old age. Regarding the John Humphries (the BBC newsreader/broadcaster) interview on YouTube, the difference in height is bizarre. Humphries looks like a schoolboy (I assume he wasn't) and would have been about 5'9"-5'10" yet only reaching Eastwood's chin. It's hard to imagine earth Eastwood is much less than 6'4" there. Also, in his brief movie appearance with 6'5" Rock Hudson as a Lab Technician ten years earlier, he looks slightly shorter than Hudson, but not much. Remember that Eastwood was in his mid-30's when he hit the big time with the spaghetti westerns - really looking 6'4" - and in later movies like Thunderbolt/lightfoot, Eiger sanction etc. he's in his 40's plus. Clearly with movie-star looks, he has very long arms (appears a little awkward in some shots) and a massive adams apple that he'd cover up with neckchiefs in cowboy movies or using high collar shirts. He was interviewed by Simon Dee about the same time as the Humphries interview, but I think they wiped those early shows.
James B says on 18/Jun/14
He looks 6ft flat with 6'1.5 hugh jackman
mike says on 16/Jun/14
Rob, could Clint be heading towards 6ft flat now?
[Editor Rob: he might be around it]
Arch Stanton says on 15/Jun/14
And what actor does she think was/is James? Warren Beatty? Robert Redford? James Garner?
James B says on 14/Jun/14
Clint and hugh jackman
Click Here
avi says on 14/Jun/14
Again never 6'4...
James B says on 12/Jun/14
Arch my mum said earlier tonight that david Beckham looking like clint Eastwood was not a good thing since in her own words "clint Eastwood was not the best looking guy in the world"
James B says on 12/Jun/14
Well the girls who wrote the comments still thought he looked good.
Arch Stanton says on 12/Jun/14
He's in flat slippers and a dressing gown in White Hunter and in all honesty he really looked near 6'4" still proportionally IMO. Yes, he looked an inch shorter than Nesosn in Dead Pool but he looked a strong 6'3" still in that film.
Arch Stanton says on 12/Jun/14
Still looked a strong 6'3" in White Hunter Black Heart in 1990 next to Jeff Fahey who Rob has at 6 ft. Eastwood had almost 4 inches on him.
Arch Stanton says on 10/Jun/14
Click Here

Ha James, Jackman goes one step worse!!
Gonzalo says on 2/Jun/14
Eastwood, Freeman and Kobe Bryant

Click Here

Click Here
littlesue says on 30/May/14
Clint lost a few inches of height
https://www.facebook.com/OldHollywood.net/photos/a.287290144724822.70224.287289148058255/569802326473601/?type=1&theater
Sam says on 28/May/14
I think Arch's second Jackman shot was from Les Mis, in the part where he had an ugly scraggly beard and lost a bunch of weight to look gaunt. I recently saw Prisoners, there he had a shorter beard but looked fairly bulky and imposing. Jackman's lucky that he can change his weight so rapidly at his age. From shots from the new X Men he definitely was back in Wolverine-fighting shape.
Arch Stanton says on 28/May/14
Of course I've seen it Tommo!! Even Jackman says it's like a different guy on screen to himself! I would strongly doubt he drinks much James, he's the opposite from the alcoholic type I would think. He said himself in one of the links that he is "Labradorish" and not tortured at all like his character.
Tommo says on 25/May/14
@Arch Stanton have you seen the X-men film days of future past? Jackman looks like something out of a Greek myth in that! Though I think it was shot about a year ago .
James B says on 25/May/14
Arch my uncle who has had very bad health problems cause he is an alcoholic looks identical to Hugh jackman in particular around the eyes and the facial wrinkles also. Different colouring to jackman though (he has fair hair and blue eyes). That and my uncle is only 5'8 (was 5'9 when he was healthy) and weighs 8 and a half stone aged 47 'YIKES.'

Doubt hugh is an alcoholic though......
Arch Stanton says on 24/May/14
In fairness though most people look better during the summer than during the winter and at different times of the year and if he's been ill too. But there's definitely two of them hehe!
Arch Stanton says on 24/May/14
Oh yeah I'm sure most women would kill for a guy like Jackman. I think most guys would be lying if they said they wouldn't want to look like him and have his physique too. You can see what I mean though.

Compare
Click Here (looks pretty much male perfection, tanned and well there) vs now Click Here He looks really drawn and washed out under the eyes and the beard that length is really aging on him. He looks better tanned with the beard neatly trimmed to a stubble.
[Editor Rob: beards like that generally attract hobo type comments...although to be fair, the kind of clobber I go around in at times I probably look like a hobo...but I keep my beard shortish most of the time. Recently 2-3mm and a weekly trim]
Arch Stanton says on 24/May/14
Click Here

Jackman apologises for it here! I think he's aware that a longer beard ages him!
Arch Stanton says on 24/May/14
Not sure what they have to do with anything... Hugh Jackman's the sort of guy who can look very handsome at times but other times and especially recently he's sort of starting to look like an aging geography teacher and looks pale and unwell. I've read he had some cancerous lump or something removed from his nose, might explain it, although I think it was a minor skin thing. A full beard on him really looks aging.
[Editor Rob: to be fair if you looked like Jackman and had his height you are going to have no problem at all with women even with a beard.

But I can see nowadays at times maybe he doesn't look as well as a few years ago...maybe the skin cancer mole/stresses with that has took a little toll?]
James B says on 19/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/14
James have you seen Firefox? He looked 6'3" max in that film.


I thought he looked tall in that movie.


Arch also having excess body fat has not held leonardo dicaprio back from being a heartthrob has it? More women would go for him then guys in better shape such as Hugh jackman or david beckham.
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/14
James have you seen Firefox? He looked 6'3" max in that film.
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/14
It's mainly diet yeah, but if you want to blast off any excess fat quicker then intense cardio sessions is the way to go and eating clean. My craving is bread, hot cross buns, crisps and pasta. Other than that I eat pretty well! I'm already in good shape, but to look ripped you really have to lose as much body fat as possible! The problem is when you get hungry later in the evening. If I eat a bowl of popcorn and celery at 7 o clock I find it cures it later at night then!
James B says on 14/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 14/May/14
6'1 and a half and 196 pounds currently, I wasn't at that age! Under 190 seems light to me, I'm seeing if I can get down to 180s range as a test over the summer but I'm not sure it's possible without some serious dieting and exercise!


Losing weight is all about having the right diet.
Arch Stanton says on 14/May/14
6'1 and a half and 196 pounds currently, I wasn't at that age! Under 190 seems light to me, I'm seeing if I can get down to 180s range as a test over the summer but I'm not sure it's possible without some serious dieting and exercise!
James B says on 13/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 12/May/14
Oh generally Vogt I thought Wayne looked 240-260 pounds in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but yeah at the end of the 60s he looked nearer 280-300 for a few years to me. Generally I'd have thought around 17-18 stone.

140-150 is perfectly normal for that height James. I can't even begin to imagine how different it would feel at that weight though, I haven't been that weight since I was about 15!


Obviously. I mean aren't you like 6'2?
filmfan says on 12/May/14
Interesting shot of Eastwood and Connery. Connery is closer to camera so makes it hard to gauge height but in that photo not much difference. Connery is clearly a thicker set man though making Eastwood look slightly weedy.
Arch Stanton says on 12/May/14
@Randomperson Nah, Eastwood didn't look taller than Walcott at all! If anything he looked as if Walcott edged him out by a whisker but they looked roughly the same height in Eiger, not in Joe Kidd though, Walcott looked taller in that.
Arch Stanton says on 12/May/14
Oh generally Vogt I thought Wayne looked 240-260 pounds in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but yeah at the end of the 60s he looked nearer 280-300 for a few years to me. Generally I'd have thought around 17-18 stone.

140-150 is perfectly normal for that height James. I can't even begin to imagine how different it would feel at that weight though, I haven't been that weight since I was about 15!
Arch Stanton says on 12/May/14
Connery's near the camera though and Clint had already lost -1.1.5 inches by then. Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in TGTR, and Eastwood edged Sutherland out in Kelly's Heroes.
James B says on 12/May/14
Vogt is 140 pound range to thin for a 5'7-5'8 guy?
Gonzalo says on 12/May/14
Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery
Click Here
Vogt says on 11/May/14
203 is less than average for a 6'4 guy in modern days. But even in the 60s it would have been only average for someone that tall. I agree arch, wayne looked like he was pushing 300, but apparently he was only 260 even in True Grit. Hathaway told him " I want you big-bellied at 260 pounds." and aissa wayne said "the heaviest he'd ever get was about 260"

Don't mean to offend but when you saw John Wayne's legs they were pretty slim compared to the rest of him, so that's probably why he looked like he weighed more because we judge weight from the upper body.
Randomperson says on 11/May/14
In the eiger sanction eastwood looks taller then gregory walcot who played pope by an inch or more and gregory walcott is listed on here as 6 foot 4 inches tall. Next to george kennedy who was also in the movie eastwood looked the same height in some shots and half an inch taller in others. George kennedy is also listed as 6 foot 4 inches tall on this website, kennedy actually said in an interview in the 70's that he is over 6 foot 4. I'd say he could be 6'4 and a half. Which would put eastwood in the height range of between 6'4 and 6'5. But that's if all these guy's are being honest with there heights. Anyway it's a good film to check out and it might give a bit more clarity to eastwoods height either way.
James B says on 11/May/14
Well Arch maybe I am just saying that cause I am 5'7 1/2 and only weigh like 141 pounds currently
Arch Stanton says on 11/May/14
John Wayne at his heaviest though must have been 280-300 pounds in the late 60s, although he looked more 240-260 to me in a lot of films of the 50s and 60s. That's heavy build. 203 isn't heavy for a 6'4" guy.
James B says on 10/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 10/May/14
I disagree James. Wayne might have looked bigger to you because of his heavy build. See the Undefeated, he looked 6'3" range next to Rock Hudson. I think peak they were both around 6'4".


Well clint at 203 pounds in some of his westerns had quite a big build as well
Arch Stanton says on 10/May/14
I disagree James. Wayne might have looked bigger to you because of his heavy build. See the Undefeated, he looked 6'3" range next to Rock Hudson. I think peak they were both around 6'4".
Arch Stanton says on 10/May/14
Minimum 2 inches next to guys like Lee Marvin yeah. When I say minimum I mean he really didn't even look a smidge under 6'4" next to most 6'2" listed guys of that era, not that I really though he was 6'4.5".
James B says on 9/May/14
Minimum 2 inches taller than 6'2 guys Arch? Maybe with his hairstyle or cowboy boots cause there is no way clint was over 6'4 at his peak. More likely under than over.
James B says on 9/May/14
Arch john Wayne looked like a guy who could have been a big 6ft4 like say Stephenfry whereas as clint eastwood looked 6'3.

I guess john Wayne disliked clint cause he was ahead of his time whereas as Wayne was more old school.
Wingnut says on 9/May/14
On one of the eastwood forums there's a photo of clint
Visiting john Wayne on the set of the shootist.
They are standing talking with,I think,don segal
Arch Stanton says on 9/May/14
LOL. John Wayne was probably the only guy in the history of the world to call Eastwood a "big kid" and be justified in doing so LOL. I've heard a few negative comments from Wayne about Eastwood. I know that he sent a letter criticising High Plains Drifter as un-American for instance. I think Wayne probably saw him as a threat to his traditional cowboy image and all-American wholesome portrayal. I know that Clint has only said positive words about Wayne though. Clint would have to be pretty big for John Wayne to refer to him as big!
Arch Stanton says on 9/May/14
He's slouched in that scene though James. As I say I could see a full 6'4" up until about 1981. Stroud was a legit 6'2" guy peak I think as he was even with Robert Davi in License to Kill and looked it next to many in other films. Clint did look 6'5" in Coogan's Bluff but as you say hair and boots.. Every 6'2 listed guy he stood next to in the 60s and 70s he consistently looked minimum 2 inches taller. Stroud look like Glenn? WTF LOL? Click Here Actually he does a bit there but he usually looks nothing like him!! Goog img Al Capone if you want a G lookalike!!

I always thought Clint and John Wayne looked the same height on screen, although clearly different builds. The thing is Clint was barely shorter than Rock Hudson in Never Say Goodbye yet in the Undefeated Rock had about 1.5 inches on Wayne...
Wingnut says on 8/May/14
Havn't posted for a while;but here's an quote
From john Wayne it doesn't mention height,though:
69. (1973) My build-up was done through constant exposure. By the time I went overseas to visit our boys during the Second World War, they had already seen my movies when they were back home. Now their kids are grown up and their kids are seeing my movies. I'm part of the family… I think Steve McQueen and Robert Redford have a chance of becoming lasting stars. And certainly that big kid - what the hell's his name? Jesus, I have such a hard time remembering my own name sometimes. Oh, you know the one I mean, that big kid, the one that's been directing some of his own movies lately. Yeah, that's the one - Clint Eastwood!
James B says on 7/May/14
Arch do you agree that in this scene from Dirty Harry clint does not look over 6ft3?

Click Here
James B says on 7/May/14
Assuming don Stroud is 6'2 I'd say clint looks 6'5 in comparison but his hair is giving him advantage. Is it just me or does don Stroud look like Glenn? LOL
Arch Stanton says on 7/May/14
Must have been Sondra Locke who aged him quickly LOL!
Arch Stanton says on 7/May/14
Only in the last two, Sudden Impact and Dead Pool. He looked a proper 6'4" to me up until about Any Which Way you Can in the very early 80s. That was about the time he began to seriously age too, he looks like ten years older in Sudden Impact than he did in The Gauntlet!
Arch Stanton says on 7/May/14
Only in the last one Sudden Impact. He looked a proper 6'4" to me up until about Any Which Way you Can in the very early 80s. That was about the time he began to seriously age too, he looks like ten years older in Sudden Impact than he did in The Gauntlet!
Tony D says on 6/May/14
Alongside alongside 6'2" Don Stroud in Coogan's Bluff.
Click Here
Gonzalo says on 6/May/14
In Eiger Sanction he looked the same height as George Kennedy, who was undoubtedly 1`93
James B says on 6/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 5/May/14
OI agree that he looked more 6'3" range by the early 80s I think, if you see films like Firefox and Sudden impact he looked more 6'3 to me. I could see a full 6'4" up until the late 70s anyway.


Do you think clint looked more 6'3 in Dirty Harry?
Arch Stanton says on 5/May/14
OI agree that he looked more 6'3" range by the early 80s I think, if you see films like Firefox and Sudden impact he looked more 6'3 to me. I could see a full 6'4" up until the late 70s anyway.
Arch Stanton says on 5/May/14
Actually in The Eiger Sanction Eastwood looked the same height as Gregory Walcott too walking side by side, maybe slightly shorter, a cm at best. In Joe Kidd however Walcott seemed taller.
James B says on 4/May/14
Arch Stanton says on 4/May/14
James do you seriously think Eastwood looked under 6'4 in The Eiger Sanction? No way was Kennedy taller than him and did you see how lanky he actually looked in that film in jeans and a vest? If you can't see 6'4" in that film then you're unlikely to ever see it!


Yeah I'd say he could pass for 6'4 flat in eiger sanction. As I said before clint could look anywhere from 6'3 to 6'4 in his movies in the 1970s.


I remember these scenes from hang em high where 6'4 just looked unimaginable for clint when you compare him to legit 6'4ers like Liam neeson, Christopher Reeve, Jeff goldblum and Steven seagal. Seriously he looks 6'1.5-6'2 in those scenes.

Click Here

Click Here


Yet in this clip from the enforcer nearly 10 years later clint looks a lanky 6'4.
Click Here

Weird huh?
Arch Stanton says on 4/May/14
James do you seriously think Eastwood looked under 6'4 in The Eiger Sanction? No way was Kennedy taller than him and did you see how lanky he actually looked in that film in jeans and a vest? If you can't see 6'4" in that film then you're unlikely to ever see it!
IosuLM says on 29/Apr/14
Clint has a scoliosis? Maybe, it's the reason of loss of height
filmfan says on 27/Apr/14
He deliberately bulked up for the Every which, Any which way films. Naturally lean though looks strong and apparently could handle himself if pushed. Once got bullied by a marine because of relatively long hair and gave the guy a hiding. This is a story of a young Clint mentioned in a bio.
James B says on 26/Apr/14
Dont get me wrong I mean in the any which way you can films he was in tremendous shape at 15 stone of muscle. He reminded me of hugh jackman in that movie in terms of build and looks. He was starting to get more wrinkles and his hair was greying in that movie but he still looked great though.

In the 80s he may have looked a lot older all of a sudden but he was at his heaviest and most muscular during that era. In the 90s though he got a lot thinner.
James B says on 26/Apr/14
Arch Stanton says on 25/Apr/14
Click Here

Can't see ground or footwear but if you don't think he looked anything less than 6'4" there and in that film then you're never likely to agree!

In the pic he looks 6'4 yes. Personally I think clint looked his best in fistful of dollars.

Would you agree clint started to look not as good in any which way but lose?
Arch Stanton says on 25/Apr/14
Click Here

Can't see ground or footwear but if you don't think he looked anything less than 6'4" there and in that film then you're never likely to agree!
Arch Stanton says on 25/Apr/14
James, watch Paint Your Wagon. He had an easy 2 inches on 6'2" Marvin. There is a scene in which they're stood side by side at a wedding and Eastwood actually looked 6'4.5" in comparison. He looked his all time best in that movie I think. And he was having an affair with Jean Seberg on set!
James B says on 24/Apr/14
play misty for me was one of his few movies where a full 6'4 looked believable for him I must say. Even 6'5 would not be hard to imagine for him in that particular movie. Ironic though how in Dirty Harry which came out the same year he only looked 6'3 or 6'3 1/2.
Sam says on 24/Apr/14
In Gran Torino, because of his "gook" co-stars it makes Clint seem taller and my girlfriend at the time thought he was still close to my height but I knew better!
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
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.

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.