Add a Comment5615 comments
Average Guess (457 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Doug said on 4/Apr/09
Yeah he did look extremely tall in some of the old westerns I agree, but I think the impression was enhanced by the height the cowboy boots and hat gave him. You put a 6'3" big man like Eastwood in big boots and a hat and the man will be looking enormous. I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the Dollars trilogy, can't seen I've seen him looking 6'6" except in the odd scene. Therefore if he was 6'3" barefoot, with two inch cowboy boots and a hat he looks extremely tall. Also remember throughout the 60s.70s and 80s Eastwood wore his hair bouffed up and along with his strong forehead also made him look taller. The man consistently looked 6'4"ish to me in regular shoes as did John Wayne. I think both guys were around 6'3"ish either slightly below or over barefooted.
Yeah he did look extremely tall in some of the old westerns I agree, but I think the impression was enhanced by the height the cowboy boots and hat gave him. You put a 6'3" big man like Eastwood in big boots and a hat and the man will be looking enormous. I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the Dollars trilogy, can't seen I've seen him looking 6'6" except in the odd scene. Therefore if he was 6'3" barefoot, with two inch cowboy boots and a hat he looks extremely tall. Also remember throughout the 60s.70s and 80s Eastwood wore his hair bouffed up and along with his strong forehead also made him look taller. The man consistently looked 6'4"ish to me in regular shoes as did John Wayne. I think both guys were around 6'3"ish either slightly below or over barefooted.
RisingForce said on 4/Apr/09
Eastwood is closer to the camera than Sutherland, which is why he looks taller than he really is. Standing side by side, equal distances from the camera it's clear that Sutherland would be taller.
Eastwood is closer to the camera than Sutherland, which is why he looks taller than he really is. Standing side by side, equal distances from the camera it's clear that Sutherland would be taller.
Hello said on 4/Apr/09
Click Here
He's the same height as Donald Sutherland today, maybe even a hair taller. Maybe we need to rethink his height, or rethink Sutherland's height?
Click Here
He's the same height as Donald Sutherland today, maybe even a hair taller. Maybe we need to rethink his height, or rethink Sutherland's height?
Hello said on 4/Apr/09
Clint was 6'4" at his peak, PERIOD. He looks extremely tall in those old westerns, said he was 6'4", and everyone believed him because they were all craning their necks to look up at him.
You start losing height in your 40's, so even in the 70's Clint was losing height. Definitely by the 80's he was getting shorter, and it just continued gradually from then and accelerated in the last decade.
Clint was 6'4" at his peak, PERIOD. He looks extremely tall in those old westerns, said he was 6'4", and everyone believed him because they were all craning their necks to look up at him.
You start losing height in your 40's, so even in the 70's Clint was losing height. Definitely by the 80's he was getting shorter, and it just continued gradually from then and accelerated in the last decade.
Alex said on 3/Apr/09
Lol yea, the dude just shrank 3 full inches. I mean ya, 3 inches is medically recognized as the most extreme amount of height a man loses due to old age, and it is suggested at the age of 90 +(While many credible medical sources express 2 inches as the max), but its Clint Eastwood. I mean he used to be SIX FOUR , but now he is SIX ONE....3 FULL inches....ok.
Lol yea, the dude just shrank 3 full inches. I mean ya, 3 inches is medically recognized as the most extreme amount of height a man loses due to old age, and it is suggested at the age of 90 +(While many credible medical sources express 2 inches as the max), but its Clint Eastwood. I mean he used to be SIX FOUR , but now he is SIX ONE....3 FULL inches....ok.
Clark said on 2/Apr/09
Sorry Big King.....but under certain conditions and illness like cancer. Human being can lose a lot of their original height. I would double check your sources or consult a dr. specializing in geriatrics or orthopedics.
Sorry Big King.....but under certain conditions and illness like cancer. Human being can lose a lot of their original height. I would double check your sources or consult a dr. specializing in geriatrics or orthopedics.
Bob said on 1/Apr/09
Clint Eastwood was 6' 3 1/2" at his peak. Due to fairly recent back surgery he is now about 6'2". He still works out and stays in great shape though for 79 years old in May.
Clint Eastwood was 6' 3 1/2" at his peak. Due to fairly recent back surgery he is now about 6'2". He still works out and stays in great shape though for 79 years old in May.
Mike said on 1/Apr/09
Rusty; Yes, you see him walking on the western streets. But, it's a technique known as "forced perspective", whereby an individual in the foreground is filmed at the same focus as people way in the backround...making the person in the foreground appear much taller, on screen. Even the orangutang in Every Which Way But Loose was actually a 5 pound baby chimp, so as to make 4'5 Eastwood look bigger than he was or is.
Rusty; Yes, you see him walking on the western streets. But, it's a technique known as "forced perspective", whereby an individual in the foreground is filmed at the same focus as people way in the backround...making the person in the foreground appear much taller, on screen. Even the orangutang in Every Which Way But Loose was actually a 5 pound baby chimp, so as to make 4'5 Eastwood look bigger than he was or is.
Doug said on 1/Apr/09
Anybody who honestly thinks Eastwood was 6'4"-6'4.5" barefoot at peak Google image Eastwood and Robbins cache.daylife.com and try to imagine how it could be humanly possible for a man to shrink THAT much compared to a man (Robbins) who stands legitimately at this height now. Sure Eastwood has lost an unusual amount of height but THAT much?
Anybody who honestly thinks Eastwood was 6'4"-6'4.5" barefoot at peak Google image Eastwood and Robbins cache.daylife.com and try to imagine how it could be humanly possible for a man to shrink THAT much compared to a man (Robbins) who stands legitimately at this height now. Sure Eastwood has lost an unusual amount of height but THAT much?
Doug said on 1/Apr/09
Google image Eastwood and Robbins at cache.daylife.com. Extremely difficult to believe Eastwood was ever in the same sort of range. You;d think it humanly possible for the man to shrink THAT much, by 4-5 inches. I bet Eastwood would have still been around 1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.5" barefoot Robbins at peak.
Google image Eastwood and Robbins at cache.daylife.com. Extremely difficult to believe Eastwood was ever in the same sort of range. You;d think it humanly possible for the man to shrink THAT much, by 4-5 inches. I bet Eastwood would have still been around 1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.5" barefoot Robbins at peak.
Doug said on 1/Apr/09
Mmm the more I've thought about it and watched his films, the more I seriously doubt Eastwood was ever 6'4" barefoot. A legit 6'4" barefoot is really borderline giant it is really thats heading into basketball player territory. The man was very tall granted but I think it more likely he was around 190 and 193 in shoes.
Mmm the more I've thought about it and watched his films, the more I seriously doubt Eastwood was ever 6'4" barefoot. A legit 6'4" barefoot is really borderline giant it is really thats heading into basketball player territory. The man was very tall granted but I think it more likely he was around 190 and 193 in shoes.
Big King said on 31/Mar/09
Well, there is a source needed that he has lost almost 4 inches!!! Did he have any surgeries or so? A human isn't able to lose 3 inches, even he becomes a creepy, old man. I read that a human can only lose 2 inches if he gets older.
Well, there is a source needed that he has lost almost 4 inches!!! Did he have any surgeries or so? A human isn't able to lose 3 inches, even he becomes a creepy, old man. I read that a human can only lose 2 inches if he gets older.
Rusty said on 30/Mar/09
Harold says on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
That is lie, I saw him walking in those old westerns and I see him walking on the street once in a while. Now id say he looks 6'1" and at peak a strong 6'3", 6'4" out of bed maybe.
Harold says on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
That is lie, I saw him walking in those old westerns and I see him walking on the street once in a while. Now id say he looks 6'1" and at peak a strong 6'3", 6'4" out of bed maybe.
mike c said on 29/Mar/09
Come now, Harold. It's a known fact that Herve was 1" taller than Clint. Just read the Inquirer!
Come now, Harold. It's a known fact that Herve was 1" taller than Clint. Just read the Inquirer!
Harold said on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
Hugh 190cm said on 28/Mar/09
Eastwood looked like a 6ft3+ guy in the ninties. Today he's around 6ft2 or possibly a shade below. Still tall. 6ft4 as a young man.
Eastwood looked like a 6ft3+ guy in the ninties. Today he's around 6ft2 or possibly a shade below. Still tall. 6ft4 as a young man.
RisingForce said on 27/Mar/09
I've seen In The Line Of Fire many times, one of my favorite Eastwood movies. I also liked The Unforgiven quite a bit. I agree he can look 6'4" there. He did seem shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool which was 4-5 years before. But I didn't see Neeson's footwear, people forget that even tall men wear boots. not to look taller but because they like the style. Neeson could have easily had a footwear advantage. Eastwood seemed a lot taller than Neeson in the Cemetary scene in that movie though, but that was outside where ground levels will really vary.
I've seen In The Line Of Fire many times, one of my favorite Eastwood movies. I also liked The Unforgiven quite a bit. I agree he can look 6'4" there. He did seem shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool which was 4-5 years before. But I didn't see Neeson's footwear, people forget that even tall men wear boots. not to look taller but because they like the style. Neeson could have easily had a footwear advantage. Eastwood seemed a lot taller than Neeson in the Cemetary scene in that movie though, but that was outside where ground levels will really vary.
Doug said on 25/Mar/09
DId you see "In the Line of Fire", Rising, and "Unforgiven". Eastwood was taller than Morgan Freeman by at least an inch and seemd to have four inches on his 6' co-star in In the Line of Fire. In 1993 Eastwood still looked near 6'4", in shoes anyway. However compared to Ralph Moeller and Arnie in 1994 he barely looked 6'3" in a photo I've seen.
DId you see "In the Line of Fire", Rising, and "Unforgiven". Eastwood was taller than Morgan Freeman by at least an inch and seemd to have four inches on his 6' co-star in In the Line of Fire. In 1993 Eastwood still looked near 6'4", in shoes anyway. However compared to Ralph Moeller and Arnie in 1994 he barely looked 6'3" in a photo I've seen.
RisingForce said on 24/Mar/09
Jervis, I suspect Clint had lost height and was only 6'3" by the time of that film in 1990. Clint looked shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool(1988) and I saw a 1993 article where Clint was listed 6'3". Sheen also could be the 5'10" that he claims or he may have worn lifts.
Regardless I think that Clint was 6'4" peak, 6'3" by the late 80's/early 90's and now 6'1" max.
Jervis, I suspect Clint had lost height and was only 6'3" by the time of that film in 1990. Clint looked shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool(1988) and I saw a 1993 article where Clint was listed 6'3". Sheen also could be the 5'10" that he claims or he may have worn lifts.
Regardless I think that Clint was 6'4" peak, 6'3" by the late 80's/early 90's and now 6'1" max.
Sam said on 23/Mar/09
In Gran Torino, a file on Clint's character lists him as 6'3"
In Gran Torino, a file on Clint's character lists him as 6'3"
#(Hugh)# said on 22/Mar/09
6ft4 in his prime is correct. I think nowadays he's around 6ft1 to 6ft2.
6ft4 in his prime is correct. I think nowadays he's around 6ft1 to 6ft2.
Doug said on 22/Mar/09
Yeah I agree Jervis but I think Jeff Bridges has always looked nearer 6'2 at peak, thats what I thought he was. Its difficult to see how Eastwood could have been over 6'3" barefoot. Most people say "Clint almost was 6'4" but surely they judge him by how they regularly viewed him in boots/shoes. Yes I believe the man was around 6'4" throughout much of his career but in shoes. He has always looked like a 6'3" guy to me which is still particularly tall but I'm pretty certain he was always measured in sneakers/shoes. He was undoubtedly taller than a flat 6'2" at peak for sure though.
Yeah I agree Jervis but I think Jeff Bridges has always looked nearer 6'2 at peak, thats what I thought he was. Its difficult to see how Eastwood could have been over 6'3" barefoot. Most people say "Clint almost was 6'4" but surely they judge him by how they regularly viewed him in boots/shoes. Yes I believe the man was around 6'4" throughout much of his career but in shoes. He has always looked like a 6'3" guy to me which is still particularly tall but I'm pretty certain he was always measured in sneakers/shoes. He was undoubtedly taller than a flat 6'2" at peak for sure though.
Anonymous said on 19/Mar/09
Not 186 cm, Doug...6'2" at his peak...this means the 186-188 cm range...And yes Jervis, you're almost right...in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Clint Eastwood is max 1'1/2"- 2'(3,75-5,1 cm)taller than Jeff Bridges(which is 183-184 cm in my opinion,not 6'1")
Not 186 cm, Doug...6'2" at his peak...this means the 186-188 cm range...And yes Jervis, you're almost right...in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Clint Eastwood is max 1'1/2"- 2'(3,75-5,1 cm)taller than Jeff Bridges(which is 183-184 cm in my opinion,not 6'1")
Jervis said on 19/Mar/09
It seems to me that almost all the people on this site think clint was less than 6ft4" peak.I think his peak should be changed to 6ft3".I was watching the rookie last night in which clint stared with Charlie Sheen.It was from 1990 so clint would have been 60 years old.If Sheen was 5ft9" as listed on this site there is no way clint was 7" taller than him.In fact clint only looked 6ft1"next to sheen sometimes.If you did not no how tall Sheen was and you heard Clint was 6ft4" you would think Sheen was at least 5ft11"as I did when i saw the film in the cinema in 1990.Also in WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART he did not look 4" taller than the 6ft"Jeff Fahey,or in TUNDERBOLT AND LIGHT FOOT he did not look 3" taller than the 6ft1" Jeff Bridges.
It seems to me that almost all the people on this site think clint was less than 6ft4" peak.I think his peak should be changed to 6ft3".I was watching the rookie last night in which clint stared with Charlie Sheen.It was from 1990 so clint would have been 60 years old.If Sheen was 5ft9" as listed on this site there is no way clint was 7" taller than him.In fact clint only looked 6ft1"next to sheen sometimes.If you did not no how tall Sheen was and you heard Clint was 6ft4" you would think Sheen was at least 5ft11"as I did when i saw the film in the cinema in 1990.Also in WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART he did not look 4" taller than the 6ft"Jeff Fahey,or in TUNDERBOLT AND LIGHT FOOT he did not look 3" taller than the 6ft1" Jeff Bridges.
Doug said on 19/Mar/09
It would appear that Clint was measured in shoes/sneakers, surely?
It would appear that Clint was measured in shoes/sneakers, surely?
Doug said on 19/Mar/09
I think Wayne and Eastwood were definately of a very similar height at peak though. Both were particularly tall men but in my view both men reached 6'4" in boots, Wayne perhaps 6'4.5" in boots at peak. But I have been watching a lot of films of late and it really is difficult in many films to see Wayne at a legit 6'4" it has to be said. If Eastwood was the full 6'4" peak he would regularly reach the 6'5.5-6'6" range in cowboy boots same as Wayne which in my view both men never did, I think it is pretty clear to most these guys were well below 6'6" in boots. 6'4" in boots, 6'2.5-6'3.25" barefoot it just seems to add up.
I think Wayne and Eastwood were definately of a very similar height at peak though. Both were particularly tall men but in my view both men reached 6'4" in boots, Wayne perhaps 6'4.5" in boots at peak. But I have been watching a lot of films of late and it really is difficult in many films to see Wayne at a legit 6'4" it has to be said. If Eastwood was the full 6'4" peak he would regularly reach the 6'5.5-6'6" range in cowboy boots same as Wayne which in my view both men never did, I think it is pretty clear to most these guys were well below 6'6" in boots. 6'4" in boots, 6'2.5-6'3.25" barefoot it just seems to add up.
Mike said on 18/Mar/09
My first reaction to Dirty Harry's post, below, was "oh, c'mon...". But you know, it would explain alot of height discrepencies. I agree with more of it than I disagree with it.
My first reaction to Dirty Harry's post, below, was "oh, c'mon...". But you know, it would explain alot of height discrepencies. I agree with more of it than I disagree with it.
Doug said on 18/Mar/09
I must admit I agree with most of what dirty harry has said below although Clint has lost more height than an inch clearly. Eastwood looked 6'4" in boots, so was a likely 6'3" without. I think hes lost nearer 2 inches today. 6'2.5" is not out of the question peak but thats a bare minimum barefoot. 191 I think is a good estimate at peak. A lot of people do judge heights by people in shoes/boots. Clint Walker again in my view was around 6'4.5" and 6'6" in boots.
I must admit I agree with most of what dirty harry has said below although Clint has lost more height than an inch clearly. Eastwood looked 6'4" in boots, so was a likely 6'3" without. I think hes lost nearer 2 inches today. 6'2.5" is not out of the question peak but thats a bare minimum barefoot. 191 I think is a good estimate at peak. A lot of people do judge heights by people in shoes/boots. Clint Walker again in my view was around 6'4.5" and 6'6" in boots.
Doug said on 18/Mar/09
186 peak for Eastwood The Truth? Are you kidding? The man not below 190 barefoot peak for sure, he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" guys even those closer to 6'3". Did you not see Eastwood being clearly taller than Morgan Freeman in the early 90s? The very lowest peak barefoot height for Eastwood is 189cm. Personally I think Eastwood was around 191-192 barefoot peak. He has looked too tall in most of his films not have been above 6'2".
186 peak for Eastwood The Truth? Are you kidding? The man not below 190 barefoot peak for sure, he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" guys even those closer to 6'3". Did you not see Eastwood being clearly taller than Morgan Freeman in the early 90s? The very lowest peak barefoot height for Eastwood is 189cm. Personally I think Eastwood was around 191-192 barefoot peak. He has looked too tall in most of his films not have been above 6'2".
dirty harry said on 18/Mar/09
Look people please!
John Wayne was a big guy but not quite as big as we might suspect. He stood 6'2.5" bare foot.
James Garner stood 6'1" in his hey day.
Clint East wood stood about the same as the Duke 6'2.5" (Clint is around 6'1.5" now, give or take a cm at 186.7cm.
Clint Walker(yet,again another big actor, but shorter than his publicity resume says 6'6" -6'7". I dont' think so!!!. Actual height 6'4.5".
Clint's lost a bit of height, yeah, but 3 solid inches come on you people keep it real. 4cm at the most, but it's probably on 3cm, which is the average height loss any way for someone over 60.
The pictures are there to see, the films and comaparative sources are there for all to see. Let's keep it real. Clint would have stood 190cm in the morning anyway as a young man. so in 3cm trainer heels he would stand 6'4" to some one under 6ft!
Look people please!
John Wayne was a big guy but not quite as big as we might suspect. He stood 6'2.5" bare foot.
James Garner stood 6'1" in his hey day.
Clint East wood stood about the same as the Duke 6'2.5" (Clint is around 6'1.5" now, give or take a cm at 186.7cm.
Clint Walker(yet,again another big actor, but shorter than his publicity resume says 6'6" -6'7". I dont' think so!!!. Actual height 6'4.5".
Clint's lost a bit of height, yeah, but 3 solid inches come on you people keep it real. 4cm at the most, but it's probably on 3cm, which is the average height loss any way for someone over 60.
The pictures are there to see, the films and comaparative sources are there for all to see. Let's keep it real. Clint would have stood 190cm in the morning anyway as a young man. so in 3cm trainer heels he would stand 6'4" to some one under 6ft!
adam said on 18/Mar/09
Yes, I`d say Donald Sutherland was more likely 6-3
Yes, I`d say Donald Sutherland was more likely 6-3
Mike said on 17/Mar/09
....I can "almost" see Eastwood as 6'4, at one point, but never can go along with Sutherland being 6'4. If Soul was over 6', was Glasier over 5'10? Not to me. Getting back to John Wayne....I definitely give him a solid 6'4. How dis Eastwood lose 3 inches, for a fit guy? Sheesh. Seems like alot.
....I can "almost" see Eastwood as 6'4, at one point, but never can go along with Sutherland being 6'4. If Soul was over 6', was Glasier over 5'10? Not to me. Getting back to John Wayne....I definitely give him a solid 6'4. How dis Eastwood lose 3 inches, for a fit guy? Sheesh. Seems like alot.
Patrick said on 17/Mar/09
filmfan and Daniel, thanks! Soryy Mike for even if i mixed you up with "the other" Mike, you definitely are mcuh more interesting! I still disagree about Soul. BTW, in Kelly's heroes, Clint is at least, I mean "at least", as tall as 6'4 Donald Sutherland. Claiming him 6'2 tops is simply non sense. To think those who say that never ever saw a 6'2 man. As for a soon 79 years old man, i wish I'd be like him at...65! I am 56 and remember, perfectly, the outrageous heels Mike you refer to. The problem is that everybody wore more or less the same kind of shoes, which makes everyone stacking up anybody else!
filmfan and Daniel, thanks! Soryy Mike for even if i mixed you up with "the other" Mike, you definitely are mcuh more interesting! I still disagree about Soul. BTW, in Kelly's heroes, Clint is at least, I mean "at least", as tall as 6'4 Donald Sutherland. Claiming him 6'2 tops is simply non sense. To think those who say that never ever saw a 6'2 man. As for a soon 79 years old man, i wish I'd be like him at...65! I am 56 and remember, perfectly, the outrageous heels Mike you refer to. The problem is that everybody wore more or less the same kind of shoes, which makes everyone stacking up anybody else!
Mike said on 15/Mar/09
David Soul...5'11, tops
David Soul...5'11, tops
Daniel said on 14/Mar/09
filmfan is absolutely right, in my modest opinion
filmfan is absolutely right, in my modest opinion
filmfan said on 14/Mar/09
David Soul was a tall guy. He was only a little shorter than David Walliams when he guest starred on Little Britain. Walliams is 6'2''. Not all film stars heights are inflated. Eastwood has always looked very tall although in the last decade he has lost some height it appears. The guy is almost 80 so it's not surprising he doesn't have perfect posture anymore. He always looked 6'4'' or thereabouts to me in the old films. Even when working with tall actors Clint looked genuinely tall.
David Soul was a tall guy. He was only a little shorter than David Walliams when he guest starred on Little Britain. Walliams is 6'2''. Not all film stars heights are inflated. Eastwood has always looked very tall although in the last decade he has lost some height it appears. The guy is almost 80 so it's not surprising he doesn't have perfect posture anymore. He always looked 6'4'' or thereabouts to me in the old films. Even when working with tall actors Clint looked genuinely tall.
The Truth said on 14/Mar/09
Clint Eastwood's height, in my opinion:
6'2"(186-188 cm)at his peak (and without heels)
6'- 6'1.1/4 (183-185 cm)now
Clint Eastwood's height, in my opinion:
6'2"(186-188 cm)at his peak (and without heels)
6'- 6'1.1/4 (183-185 cm)now
Jervis said on 13/Mar/09
I agree Doug,6ft3" peak.
I agree Doug,6ft3" peak.
Doug said on 13/Mar/09
Clint has lost far more than an inch in height Jervis. He really has lost 2-3 inches. I think he was 6'3" barefoot peak, hes nearer 6'1" now max.
Clint has lost far more than an inch in height Jervis. He really has lost 2-3 inches. I think he was 6'3" barefoot peak, hes nearer 6'1" now max.
No one said on 12/Mar/09
Clint Eastwood is 6'1" according to his biography at the age of 78.He very well and most likely was 6'3" in his 70's movies
Clint Eastwood is 6'1" according to his biography at the age of 78.He very well and most likely was 6'3" in his 70's movies
Mike said on 11/Mar/09
Patrick, I'm "not" the Mike who claims Wayne was 5'8. I stand by anything I wrote, below, and believe Soul was 5'11...tops. Take away those 70's heels, the guy was average height. If Eastwood really is 6'4, Soul wore lifts, high heels or he stood on something. Read my posts about James Garner on this page, fairly recently, and on his own page. Alleged heights of Garner, as well as those we compare him to, are so all over the board, there is going to be no way to solve this current debate, objectively. I met Kenny Rogers, Robert WAgner, and James Coburn in person(1983). I have no clue what their heights are listed as here, on top or in the discussions. But, as a 5.11.5 (regular shoes)17 year old, I'd have put them as Rogers-6'1(cowboy boots), Wagner-6'0(strong heeled shoes) and Coburn-6'0(moccassins). Compare those estimates, to whatever the discussions say. Everything is, I'm sure, all over the board. I'm not debating Eastwood's height, as much as Soul's.
Patrick, I'm "not" the Mike who claims Wayne was 5'8. I stand by anything I wrote, below, and believe Soul was 5'11...tops. Take away those 70's heels, the guy was average height. If Eastwood really is 6'4, Soul wore lifts, high heels or he stood on something. Read my posts about James Garner on this page, fairly recently, and on his own page. Alleged heights of Garner, as well as those we compare him to, are so all over the board, there is going to be no way to solve this current debate, objectively. I met Kenny Rogers, Robert WAgner, and James Coburn in person(1983). I have no clue what their heights are listed as here, on top or in the discussions. But, as a 5.11.5 (regular shoes)17 year old, I'd have put them as Rogers-6'1(cowboy boots), Wagner-6'0(strong heeled shoes) and Coburn-6'0(moccassins). Compare those estimates, to whatever the discussions say. Everything is, I'm sure, all over the board. I'm not debating Eastwood's height, as much as Soul's.
Da Man said on 10/Mar/09
I agree with Doug
I agree with Doug
Jervis said on 10/Mar/09
If Soul was 5ft11" then Eastwood was 6ft1".Lee marvin was 5ft11" George Kennady was 6ft1",Jeff Bridges is 5ft11" Gean Hackman is 6ft.I Could go on all day taking 2 inches of all actors who stared with eastwood.Because i think Eastwood was 6ft3" peak,that means soul could not have been 5ft11".If he was that means that Eastwood did not shrink,he was 6ft1" then and is 6ft1" now.
If Soul was 5ft11" then Eastwood was 6ft1".Lee marvin was 5ft11" George Kennady was 6ft1",Jeff Bridges is 5ft11" Gean Hackman is 6ft.I Could go on all day taking 2 inches of all actors who stared with eastwood.Because i think Eastwood was 6ft3" peak,that means soul could not have been 5ft11".If he was that means that Eastwood did not shrink,he was 6ft1" then and is 6ft1" now.
Patrick said on 10/Mar/09
I forgot 6'3 J.C. Lynch who looks the same height as Clint in Gran Torino and if taller, barely so by less than one inch as he appears in the movie at least.
I forgot 6'3 J.C. Lynch who looks the same height as Clint in Gran Torino and if taller, barely so by less than one inch as he appears in the movie at least.
Patrick said on 10/Mar/09
But if you are the Mike who lists John Wayne as 5'8...will you admit we all can doubt your opinion?
Soul was always way over 5'11! Just open your eyes. As for Clint, whoever saw him until the mid eighties can see he towers over anybody in such a way we can talk about "dwarfing" many of them. In 1999 True Crime, he's far taller than James Woods and a good inch taller than Denis Leary who is everything but short! In Space Cow Boys, he is not even dwarfed by James Cromwell! He sure should be if only at the time, a weak 6'2. In Gran Torino, who can say he looks just 6'1 as often claimed here? That's ridiculous. THis man a great and big and still tall, whatever sense you can take those words.
But if you are the Mike who lists John Wayne as 5'8...will you admit we all can doubt your opinion?
Soul was always way over 5'11! Just open your eyes. As for Clint, whoever saw him until the mid eighties can see he towers over anybody in such a way we can talk about "dwarfing" many of them. In 1999 True Crime, he's far taller than James Woods and a good inch taller than Denis Leary who is everything but short! In Space Cow Boys, he is not even dwarfed by James Cromwell! He sure should be if only at the time, a weak 6'2. In Gran Torino, who can say he looks just 6'1 as often claimed here? That's ridiculous. THis man a great and big and still tall, whatever sense you can take those words.
Doug said on 10/Mar/09
Actually in Josey Wales Clint looked like he'd be around 6'4" even barefoot. He towered above his cast members in one scene with the little bar tender he looks 6'6". 6'4" at 15 is extremely tall. He must have absolutely towered his classmates at school. Mostly though Clint from the 1960s to the early 1990s looked 6'4" in shoes, no taller which would make him nearer 6'3" peak barefoot.
Actually in Josey Wales Clint looked like he'd be around 6'4" even barefoot. He towered above his cast members in one scene with the little bar tender he looks 6'6". 6'4" at 15 is extremely tall. He must have absolutely towered his classmates at school. Mostly though Clint from the 1960s to the early 1990s looked 6'4" in shoes, no taller which would make him nearer 6'3" peak barefoot.
_-_-_-Hugh-_-_-_/ said on 9/Mar/09
I can buy the full 6ft4 peak. Now he looks close to 6ft2.
I can buy the full 6ft4 peak. Now he looks close to 6ft2.
Mike said on 9/Mar/09
Paul Michael Glasier was never a bit over 5'10. He was clearly shorter than Garner on a '74 episode of Rockford, and I always read he was 5'10. No way Soul was 3 inches taller. I put Soul at 5'11, no more. I've beat the drum on this long enough.
Paul Michael Glasier was never a bit over 5'10. He was clearly shorter than Garner on a '74 episode of Rockford, and I always read he was 5'10. No way Soul was 3 inches taller. I put Soul at 5'11, no more. I've beat the drum on this long enough.
Jervis said on 8/Mar/09
I think from looking at clint he was peak 6ft3",now he is 6ft2",but can look shorter because of bad posture.This means he has only lost 1 inch, which seems more normal.George Kennady was 6ft3",Lee Marvin was 6ft1",Clint was the same as Kennady in one movie,and 2" taller than Marvin in another,but he never looked 2" taller than 6ft2" actors to me only about 1 inch making him 6ft3".If his peak was changed to 6ft3" i think most people could accept that.
I think from looking at clint he was peak 6ft3",now he is 6ft2",but can look shorter because of bad posture.This means he has only lost 1 inch, which seems more normal.George Kennady was 6ft3",Lee Marvin was 6ft1",Clint was the same as Kennady in one movie,and 2" taller than Marvin in another,but he never looked 2" taller than 6ft2" actors to me only about 1 inch making him 6ft3".If his peak was changed to 6ft3" i think most people could accept that.
Parker said on 8/Mar/09
I remember an interview with Clint talking about his school days. He said at 15 he was 6'4, with one guy in his year 6'5. I watched Magnum Force again last night and he had a least a couple of inches on David Soul,Tim Matheson and Robert Urich, all listed 6'1/6'2 on this site. He's claimed 6'4 and looked 6'4 20 years ago - don't understand the debate.
I remember an interview with Clint talking about his school days. He said at 15 he was 6'4, with one guy in his year 6'5. I watched Magnum Force again last night and he had a least a couple of inches on David Soul,Tim Matheson and Robert Urich, all listed 6'1/6'2 on this site. He's claimed 6'4 and looked 6'4 20 years ago - don't understand the debate.
Mike said on 7/Mar/09
I don't have any photos or papers showing Soul to be less, equal to or more than 6'1. And I don't know what that would prove. He wore lifts? High heels? Do I believe Brad Pitt is taller than Eastwood? No way. I'll repeat; through the 70's and 80's, I always read Soul was 5'11. I, personally, would never put Soul at 6'1, and though I enjoy this site, I do not believe every single height listing is necessarily accurate. And so, a 6'4 Eastwood would have been alot taller than Soul, in 1973. Regarding my friend's father, the story was "conveyed" to me 20 years ago. His meeting Eastwood could have been 5 or 10 years before that. Either way, I do not suscribe to this "absolute" notion that guys just automatically shrink in their 50's and early 60's. I'm simply tossing in some more opinions on this. As I also post about James Garner's height, I'll repeat here (to show discrepencies exist for everyone's height) how I just saw a pic of Garner and Clint Walker, from roughly 40 years ago. It looked as if Garner was just a couple inches shorter of Walker, who is noted for being 6'5, 6'6 or even 6'7. Yet, during the same time frame, Garner is Dwarfed by Chuck Connors, who was reportedly 6'5 or 6'6. Garner was barely taller than Johnny Carson on Laugh-In(also from the 1960's), and well under the 6'4 Tom Selleck on Rockford Files (he couldn't have shrunk that much by 1978). So, who's height is accurate? Soul's? Walkers? Who knows. My opinion, Soul-5'11, Garner 6'1, Connors 6'5, Walker 6'5 or 6'6, and Eastwood 6'3.
I don't have any photos or papers showing Soul to be less, equal to or more than 6'1. And I don't know what that would prove. He wore lifts? High heels? Do I believe Brad Pitt is taller than Eastwood? No way. I'll repeat; through the 70's and 80's, I always read Soul was 5'11. I, personally, would never put Soul at 6'1, and though I enjoy this site, I do not believe every single height listing is necessarily accurate. And so, a 6'4 Eastwood would have been alot taller than Soul, in 1973. Regarding my friend's father, the story was "conveyed" to me 20 years ago. His meeting Eastwood could have been 5 or 10 years before that. Either way, I do not suscribe to this "absolute" notion that guys just automatically shrink in their 50's and early 60's. I'm simply tossing in some more opinions on this. As I also post about James Garner's height, I'll repeat here (to show discrepencies exist for everyone's height) how I just saw a pic of Garner and Clint Walker, from roughly 40 years ago. It looked as if Garner was just a couple inches shorter of Walker, who is noted for being 6'5, 6'6 or even 6'7. Yet, during the same time frame, Garner is Dwarfed by Chuck Connors, who was reportedly 6'5 or 6'6. Garner was barely taller than Johnny Carson on Laugh-In(also from the 1960's), and well under the 6'4 Tom Selleck on Rockford Files (he couldn't have shrunk that much by 1978). So, who's height is accurate? Soul's? Walkers? Who knows. My opinion, Soul-5'11, Garner 6'1, Connors 6'5, Walker 6'5 or 6'6, and Eastwood 6'3.
Jervis said on 7/Mar/09
Mike eastwood is 78 years old,almost 20 years ago he would have been 59 or 60,not in his 40s.He was starting to lose hight by then about 6ft3",that was around the time of the dead pool were he was about 1 inch shorter than liam neeson.
Mike eastwood is 78 years old,almost 20 years ago he would have been 59 or 60,not in his 40s.He was starting to lose hight by then about 6ft3",that was around the time of the dead pool were he was about 1 inch shorter than liam neeson.
Tony G. said on 7/Mar/09
Mike, David Soul is listed as 6'1" on this very site. If you can post some photos showing him to be less (at his peak), I'll be happy to look at them.
Mike, David Soul is listed as 6'1" on this very site. If you can post some photos showing him to be less (at his peak), I'll be happy to look at them.
Mike said on 6/Mar/09
Tony, I never wrote that I thought Soul's current height was 5'11. I have no idea what it was. As a kid in the 70's, I read every kind of magazine about the TV shows of the day. For whatever reason, I have an uncanny knack for remembering numbers, dates, ages...related to TV shows and their stars. David Soul was unanimously listed as being 5'11, in the 70's...which is also the time when Magnum Force was made. I have no preconceived agenda as to proving one thing or another on this site. All I know is Soul was written up as 5'11 often, never ever looked 6'1 to me, and therefore, it makes me question Eastwood being a solid 6'4.
Tony, I never wrote that I thought Soul's current height was 5'11. I have no idea what it was. As a kid in the 70's, I read every kind of magazine about the TV shows of the day. For whatever reason, I have an uncanny knack for remembering numbers, dates, ages...related to TV shows and their stars. David Soul was unanimously listed as being 5'11, in the 70's...which is also the time when Magnum Force was made. I have no preconceived agenda as to proving one thing or another on this site. All I know is Soul was written up as 5'11 often, never ever looked 6'1 to me, and therefore, it makes me question Eastwood being a solid 6'4.
Tony G. said on 5/Mar/09
Mike, at the time of that movie (Magnum Force, 1973), David Soul was 6'1". I don't know why you are comparing Soul's current height. But in the photo I posted, Clint looks easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" Soul.
Mike, at the time of that movie (Magnum Force, 1973), David Soul was 6'1". I don't know why you are comparing Soul's current height. But in the photo I posted, Clint looks easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" Soul.
Mr s said on 5/Mar/09
Just seen the film gran torino, he still looks well over six foot to me.
Just seen the film gran torino, he still looks well over six foot to me.
Mike said on 4/Mar/09
Regarding David Soul; Since Starsky and Hutch days, I read he was 5'11, and Paul Michael G. was 5'10. If so, a 6'4 Clint would have been 5 inches taller than Soul. Didn't seem so. I have an old college buddy, who's dad told me het met Eastwood (his dad told me this almost 20 years ago, when both Eastwood and my friend's dad were in their 40's). He said he (my friend's dad) was 6'4, and Eastwood was taller. Only, my friend's dad may have been tall, but was no way 6'4. "Maybe" 6'2. Bottom line? I have no idea how tall Eastwood was/is. I'd guess 6'3, and say that he got measured in the morning...making him close to 6'4.
Regarding David Soul; Since Starsky and Hutch days, I read he was 5'11, and Paul Michael G. was 5'10. If so, a 6'4 Clint would have been 5 inches taller than Soul. Didn't seem so. I have an old college buddy, who's dad told me het met Eastwood (his dad told me this almost 20 years ago, when both Eastwood and my friend's dad were in their 40's). He said he (my friend's dad) was 6'4, and Eastwood was taller. Only, my friend's dad may have been tall, but was no way 6'4. "Maybe" 6'2. Bottom line? I have no idea how tall Eastwood was/is. I'd guess 6'3, and say that he got measured in the morning...making him close to 6'4.
Doug said on 4/Mar/09
Interestingly Eastwood's son Kyle Eastwood the jazz bassist is listed as 6'4" too. Inherited the very tall genes by the looks of it.
Interestingly Eastwood's son Kyle Eastwood the jazz bassist is listed as 6'4" too. Inherited the very tall genes by the looks of it.
Patrick said on 3/Mar/09
I agree with filfan 100% save for i always saw him 6'4. He's huge in any movie and not as short nowadays. In gran torino, he looks exactly 6'2, being taller than anyone alse (i know "they" are short but "all"!).
Facing Sidney Poitier in 2005 or so, he was clearly taller No, he looks 6'2 or 6'1.3/4 but not less. Why denying what is in fornt of oneself?
Apart from that, he is "7' plus" to me, as a man and Actor-Director. The very last real star. A living legend for ever...
I agree with filfan 100% save for i always saw him 6'4. He's huge in any movie and not as short nowadays. In gran torino, he looks exactly 6'2, being taller than anyone alse (i know "they" are short but "all"!).
Facing Sidney Poitier in 2005 or so, he was clearly taller No, he looks 6'2 or 6'1.3/4 but not less. Why denying what is in fornt of oneself?
Apart from that, he is "7' plus" to me, as a man and Actor-Director. The very last real star. A living legend for ever...
Tony G. said on 3/Mar/09
Clint looks every bit of 6'4" when standing next to 6'1" David Soul in the movie "Magnum Force."
Click Here
Clint looks every bit of 6'4" when standing next to 6'1" David Soul in the movie "Magnum Force."
Click Here
filmfan said on 2/Mar/09
I don't understand the debate to be honest. Clint always looked about 6'4'' to my eyes. I'd say that these days he's about 6'1'' to 6'2'' or so but when young he was always very tall looking. I mean he could have been 6'3'' 3/4 but he was certainly about 6'4''.
I don't understand the debate to be honest. Clint always looked about 6'4'' to my eyes. I'd say that these days he's about 6'1'' to 6'2'' or so but when young he was always very tall looking. I mean he could have been 6'3'' 3/4 but he was certainly about 6'4''.
Doug said on 28/Feb/09
Its not only Adam who has emphasised this point James! Personally I think John Wayne was in the same category as Eastwood and Sutherland. 6'4" in shoes.
Its not only Adam who has emphasised this point James! Personally I think John Wayne was in the same category as Eastwood and Sutherland. 6'4" in shoes.
-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 25/Feb/09
He did look the same height as Kennedy who in my opinion was a strong 6ft4.
He did look the same height as Kennedy who in my opinion was a strong 6ft4.
Lenad said on 25/Feb/09
When you look at him next to Jim Carrey, 6'3 at peak sounds better.
When you look at him next to Jim Carrey, 6'3 at peak sounds better.
adam said on 23/Feb/09
George Kennedy was indeed 6-4.
George Kennedy was indeed 6-4.
Doug said on 23/Feb/09
I must admit I am a huge fan of the guy and have watched his films over and over, a favourite actor of mine. At least 95% of the time from all his films I always think, this guy looks a good example of a 6'3". I can see 6'4" in shoes peak but not barefoot. He was undoubtedly taller than 6'2" you can tell this, even in 1993 he had 4 inches on his co star who is 5'11"-6'0". There are a lot of things about Clint being 6'4" barefoot that don't add up, a legit 6'4" in shoes would regularly look 6'5", in cowboy boots 6'6". Clint was never in this range. Yes he was 6'4" peak but thats a maximum in his shoes. 6'2.75" is a possibility, no lower. A strong 6'3" I think is more accurate, it explains a lot of things.
I must admit I am a huge fan of the guy and have watched his films over and over, a favourite actor of mine. At least 95% of the time from all his films I always think, this guy looks a good example of a 6'3". I can see 6'4" in shoes peak but not barefoot. He was undoubtedly taller than 6'2" you can tell this, even in 1993 he had 4 inches on his co star who is 5'11"-6'0". There are a lot of things about Clint being 6'4" barefoot that don't add up, a legit 6'4" in shoes would regularly look 6'5", in cowboy boots 6'6". Clint was never in this range. Yes he was 6'4" peak but thats a maximum in his shoes. 6'2.75" is a possibility, no lower. A strong 6'3" I think is more accurate, it explains a lot of things.
Mike said on 22/Feb/09
Spot on Jervis! I`ve said before that every actor in the world must be inflating their height by 2" if Eastwood was only ever 6'4". GeorgeKennedy & him were always eye to eye, as was Greg Walcott & both were legit 6'4" guys.
Spot on Jervis! I`ve said before that every actor in the world must be inflating their height by 2" if Eastwood was only ever 6'4". GeorgeKennedy & him were always eye to eye, as was Greg Walcott & both were legit 6'4" guys.
brotha said on 21/Feb/09
Unforgiven is on now and Eastwood looks an inch taller than Morgan back then. Ejel, Clint was 6'4" peak no doubt, barefoot even in 91. I swear to whatever I can when I say that I'm positive I saw Morgan Freeman over a yr ago in morning slippers (no height gain) and he was right at 6'3", maybe 6'2.5", but I was still shocked that he dwarfed me so much while I right by him. I've seen a few other celebs in my hotel, mostly golfers, and commentators. Tiger I've seen, Nick Faldo stays there every year for the Buick, he's a good 6'2", Tiger is right at 6'. The guy from Angel & Bones(tv) whatever his name is about a flat 6'. I would say I'm a decent judge of height and I know how tall Freeman is.
Unforgiven is on now and Eastwood looks an inch taller than Morgan back then. Ejel, Clint was 6'4" peak no doubt, barefoot even in 91. I swear to whatever I can when I say that I'm positive I saw Morgan Freeman over a yr ago in morning slippers (no height gain) and he was right at 6'3", maybe 6'2.5", but I was still shocked that he dwarfed me so much while I right by him. I've seen a few other celebs in my hotel, mostly golfers, and commentators. Tiger I've seen, Nick Faldo stays there every year for the Buick, he's a good 6'2", Tiger is right at 6'. The guy from Angel & Bones(tv) whatever his name is about a flat 6'. I would say I'm a decent judge of height and I know how tall Freeman is.
Jervis said on 21/Feb/09
Rubbish if Clint was 6ft2 peak then kennady was 6ft2 and Marvin was 6ft as clint was clearly the same as kennady in Eiger Sanction and 2" taller than Marvin in Paint Your Wagon.Also this rubbish about cowboy boots,everybody wore cowboy boots in westerns so it just balanced everything off.On saying that I think Clint was a solid 6ft3" peek bare foot,but not 6ft2",he has lost a bit of hight because of age and he stands with a stoop when he stands up stright he is still 6ft2" with people like John Cusack,not bad for a man who will be 79years old in may.
Rubbish if Clint was 6ft2 peak then kennady was 6ft2 and Marvin was 6ft as clint was clearly the same as kennady in Eiger Sanction and 2" taller than Marvin in Paint Your Wagon.Also this rubbish about cowboy boots,everybody wore cowboy boots in westerns so it just balanced everything off.On saying that I think Clint was a solid 6ft3" peek bare foot,but not 6ft2",he has lost a bit of hight because of age and he stands with a stoop when he stands up stright he is still 6ft2" with people like John Cusack,not bad for a man who will be 79years old in may.
Ed T. said on 21/Feb/09
I think that Doug is right on the mark with his strong 6'3" barefoot estimate of Clint. Anything under than 6'3" peak barefoot is highly unlikely. Clint seemed to have a good inch and maybe slighlty more on William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Smith always seemed to be a legit 6'2" guy. No less than 6'3" peak barefoot for Clint but never quite the full 6'4" peak either.
I think that Doug is right on the mark with his strong 6'3" barefoot estimate of Clint. Anything under than 6'3" peak barefoot is highly unlikely. Clint seemed to have a good inch and maybe slighlty more on William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Smith always seemed to be a legit 6'2" guy. No less than 6'3" peak barefoot for Clint but never quite the full 6'4" peak either.
mike c said on 21/Feb/09
Clint was at least 2" taller than Cleef in all their movies. Use your pause button whenever they're face to face.
Clint was at least 2" taller than Cleef in all their movies. Use your pause button whenever they're face to face.
Ejel Khan said on 20/Feb/09
Peak height for Clint never 6'4", but 6'2" in peak and 6'1" seems right.
Peak height for Clint never 6'4", but 6'2" in peak and 6'1" seems right.
\-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 19/Feb/09
Arnie was 6ft2 prime.
Arnie was 6ft2 prime.
Joe said on 19/Feb/09
I agree with Keith. Lee Van Cleef was 6'2 and during the 2 movies he did with Clint in his early years, they looked to be about the same height.
I agree with Keith. Lee Van Cleef was 6'2 and during the 2 movies he did with Clint in his early years, they looked to be about the same height.
Doug said on 19/Feb/09
Thats how I've alway seen Clint Steve (not having the honor to meet the guy in person). He was certainly 6'4" in shoes through most of his years I'm sure, he was very likely nearer 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the 60s and 70s. Barefoot though I think he couldn't have been quite the full 6'4", he was pretty close to it at peak though I'm sure. I think a strong 6'3" is a better barefoot estimate.
Thats how I've alway seen Clint Steve (not having the honor to meet the guy in person). He was certainly 6'4" in shoes through most of his years I'm sure, he was very likely nearer 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the 60s and 70s. Barefoot though I think he couldn't have been quite the full 6'4", he was pretty close to it at peak though I'm sure. I think a strong 6'3" is a better barefoot estimate.
Steve said on 17/Feb/09
Clint was 6'4" in golf shoes, stood eye to eye with him at pro-am in 1983. That would put him 6'4-6'5 in boots. Awesome dude. Gave kids autographs when Garner just passed them by. The governator is 6' at best.
Clint was 6'4" in golf shoes, stood eye to eye with him at pro-am in 1983. That would put him 6'4-6'5 in boots. Awesome dude. Gave kids autographs when Garner just passed them by. The governator is 6' at best.
\\-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 13/Feb/09
Neeson did have about an inch on Eastwood back in 1988 but I say 6ft3.5 for Eastwood because Neeson was likely over 6ft4 seeming he was younger. Eastwood still looks tall today. Close to 6ft2 if not 6ft2.
Neeson did have about an inch on Eastwood back in 1988 but I say 6ft3.5 for Eastwood because Neeson was likely over 6ft4 seeming he was younger. Eastwood still looks tall today. Close to 6ft2 if not 6ft2.
\-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 13/Feb/09
Eastwood was still probably close to 6ft4 during the 80's and early to mid 90's. Definately a 6ft4 guy in the 60's though.
Eastwood was still probably close to 6ft4 during the 80's and early to mid 90's. Definately a 6ft4 guy in the 60's though.
Tom said on 6/Feb/09
I talked with him at an Oscar party in LA a few years ago. I was surprised he wasn't taller. About 6-2.
I talked with him at an Oscar party in LA a few years ago. I was surprised he wasn't taller. About 6-2.
AKK said on 5/Feb/09
I agree that he's lost height over the years. Just saw him on Ellen's show, and he's barely head over her, putting him just about the 6'2(assuming she's 5'6" and his head's about 8 inches) mark.
I agree that he's lost height over the years. Just saw him on Ellen's show, and he's barely head over her, putting him just about the 6'2(assuming she's 5'6" and his head's about 8 inches) mark.
RisingForce said on 4/Feb/09
That may be right. He was 58 when The Dead Pool came out but he still looked very tall. Neeson did kind of tower over Jim Carrey in that film too.
That may be right. He was 58 when The Dead Pool came out but he still looked very tall. Neeson did kind of tower over Jim Carrey in that film too.
Hugh said on 4/Feb/09
6ft4 when he was younger sounds accurate. I'd say be the time of the Dead Pool it was Neeson at 6ft4.5 and Eastwood 6ft3.5.
6ft4 when he was younger sounds accurate. I'd say be the time of the Dead Pool it was Neeson at 6ft4.5 and Eastwood 6ft3.5.
RisingForce said on 27/Jan/09
He already seemed to have lost height by the time of The Dead Pool(1988). 6'4" Liam Neeson was taller than Eastwood. Eastwood was likely around 6'3" by that time and 6'4" when he was younger.
He already seemed to have lost height by the time of The Dead Pool(1988). 6'4" Liam Neeson was taller than Eastwood. Eastwood was likely around 6'3" by that time and 6'4" when he was younger.
Doug said on 27/Jan/09
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days, and is 6'1" max in shoes today. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days, and is 6'1" max in shoes today. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
Doug said on 27/Jan/09
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
thekiddd said on 27/Jan/09
I'm pretty sure in Gran Torino, his height is listed as 6'1". I guess he now claims 6'1" huh Rob?
I'm pretty sure in Gran Torino, his height is listed as 6'1". I guess he now claims 6'1" huh Rob?
Da Man said on 25/Jan/09
James, do you honestly think Clint has lost a full 3" of height? Considering the shape he is in (which is good for his age), and the fact that his posture isn't bad at all for a man his age, I think the 3" height loss is a total crock. I doubt he's lost more than 1"-1.5" of height.
James, do you honestly think Clint has lost a full 3" of height? Considering the shape he is in (which is good for his age), and the fact that his posture isn't bad at all for a man his age, I think the 3" height loss is a total crock. I doubt he's lost more than 1"-1.5" of height.
Ed(1) said on 25/Jan/09
Keith I don't think you could be too far off the mark! Personally I've always seen Eastwood appearing on screen at a height similar to Hugh Jackman(6ft2.75). In fact he looked in that video to have almost the same exact body type and proportions, not to mention they even look a bit alike. I've never met him so maybe he was 6ft4, but a legit 6ft4 would make him 6ft6 or taller in his Spaghetti Westerns when you factor in the cowboy boots, and that seems way off! Also you're right, in the Dirty Harry films his big puffy brushed back hair and 70's style heeled dress shoes gave him an even taller impression.
Without obviously meeting him back in the 70's, I'd guess he was scraping 6ft3 and now hovers a little over 6ft. This would still make him 6ft4+ inshoes, and even if he was only 6ft2.5 in the 80's/90's he'd still pull off looking 6ft4+ in cowboy boots(Unforgiven) and near 6ft4 in dress shoes(In the Line of Fire).
Here's a comparison video clip of Jackman at an awards ceremony, and even though they're not together they do look very similar in size:
Click Here
Keith I don't think you could be too far off the mark! Personally I've always seen Eastwood appearing on screen at a height similar to Hugh Jackman(6ft2.75). In fact he looked in that video to have almost the same exact body type and proportions, not to mention they even look a bit alike. I've never met him so maybe he was 6ft4, but a legit 6ft4 would make him 6ft6 or taller in his Spaghetti Westerns when you factor in the cowboy boots, and that seems way off! Also you're right, in the Dirty Harry films his big puffy brushed back hair and 70's style heeled dress shoes gave him an even taller impression.
Without obviously meeting him back in the 70's, I'd guess he was scraping 6ft3 and now hovers a little over 6ft. This would still make him 6ft4+ inshoes, and even if he was only 6ft2.5 in the 80's/90's he'd still pull off looking 6ft4+ in cowboy boots(Unforgiven) and near 6ft4 in dress shoes(In the Line of Fire).
Here's a comparison video clip of Jackman at an awards ceremony, and even though they're not together they do look very similar in size:
Click Here
Keith said on 25/Jan/09
When yall say his peak height was 6'4", surely yall cannot mean him to have been 6'4" barefoot because he was NEVER 6'4" barefoot, and that goes for other actors as well, when yall state someones height, certainly you mean it "barefoot" ? I'm 5'11" dead even barefoot but I don't go around telling people I'm 6'0".... even though my hiking shoes that I wear all the time make me 6'0", it comes down to 2 different heights, a "true height" and a "variable height",I would say Clint Eastwood was 6'2" barefoot in his prime making him 6'4"-to-6'4.5" with those cowboy boots he wore in the spaghetti westerns and also those dress shoes he wore in the dirty harry movies had a solid 1.5"-to-2" heel making him around 6'3.5"-to-6'4" in the dirty harry movies, I feel strongly that he was never ,ever , over 6'2" barefooted....remember also that back in the 60's and 70's he wore his hair combed up and back giving a strong illusion to a 6'5"-to-6'5.5" height, his hair and footwear could have given the illusion of 3" to 3.5" tacked on to his 6'2" height back in his younger days. Now I would say with his age and spinal deterioration ...I would say maybe 6'1" barefooted if not 6'0.75", so I would agree with this site listing 6'1" , but no way was he 6'4" BAREFOOTED!- even when he was 30 yrs old, hahahah!
When yall say his peak height was 6'4", surely yall cannot mean him to have been 6'4" barefoot because he was NEVER 6'4" barefoot, and that goes for other actors as well, when yall state someones height, certainly you mean it "barefoot" ? I'm 5'11" dead even barefoot but I don't go around telling people I'm 6'0".... even though my hiking shoes that I wear all the time make me 6'0", it comes down to 2 different heights, a "true height" and a "variable height",I would say Clint Eastwood was 6'2" barefoot in his prime making him 6'4"-to-6'4.5" with those cowboy boots he wore in the spaghetti westerns and also those dress shoes he wore in the dirty harry movies had a solid 1.5"-to-2" heel making him around 6'3.5"-to-6'4" in the dirty harry movies, I feel strongly that he was never ,ever , over 6'2" barefooted....remember also that back in the 60's and 70's he wore his hair combed up and back giving a strong illusion to a 6'5"-to-6'5.5" height, his hair and footwear could have given the illusion of 3" to 3.5" tacked on to his 6'2" height back in his younger days. Now I would say with his age and spinal deterioration ...I would say maybe 6'1" barefooted if not 6'0.75", so I would agree with this site listing 6'1" , but no way was he 6'4" BAREFOOTED!- even when he was 30 yrs old, hahahah!
mike c said on 24/Jan/09
Great video, Terry! Heston 6'3" and Clint clearly 6'4".
Great video, Terry! Heston 6'3" and Clint clearly 6'4".
Terry said on 24/Jan/09
Check out this clip of Clint temporarily filling in for Charlton Heston at an Oscar ceremony in 1972. They are briefly together from 1:05 onwards. Clint has a clear edge over him
Click Here
Check out this clip of Clint temporarily filling in for Charlton Heston at an Oscar ceremony in 1972. They are briefly together from 1:05 onwards. Clint has a clear edge over him
Click Here
Hugh said on 24/Jan/09
Freeman might've been 6ft3 in his prime. He still looks like a 6ft2+ guy. Eastwood I'd say is roughly an inch shorter than Frreman if he had good posture. 186-187cm.
Freeman might've been 6ft3 in his prime. He still looks like a 6ft2+ guy. Eastwood I'd say is roughly an inch shorter than Frreman if he had good posture. 186-187cm.
Da Man said on 22/Jan/09
He looked 2+" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch in Gran Torino.
He looked 2+" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch in Gran Torino.
jake said on 22/Jan/09
In Gran Torino, 6-2 briefly appears on his character's medical documents. I'd say that's accurate, or close to it. Eastwood is probably just under 6 ft 2 in, maybe 6' 1
In Gran Torino, 6-2 briefly appears on his character's medical documents. I'd say that's accurate, or close to it. Eastwood is probably just under 6 ft 2 in, maybe 6' 1
brotha said on 21/Jan/09
James, Freeman is 6'3" easy, maybe more. I recently saw him; this puts Eastwood at around 6'1" today. I agree he was about 2" shorter than Morgan in Million Dollar Baby. Does this clear things up, Danimal?
James, Freeman is 6'3" easy, maybe more. I recently saw him; this puts Eastwood at around 6'1" today. I agree he was about 2" shorter than Morgan in Million Dollar Baby. Does this clear things up, Danimal?
Hugh said on 20/Jan/09
I find that hard to believe James. Freeman owning Clint by 2.5 inches! in Unforgiven it was Vice Versa.
I find that hard to believe James. Freeman owning Clint by 2.5 inches! in Unforgiven it was Vice Versa.
Tim said on 19/Jan/09
I beleive Clint has aways been 6 ft 2 in. He may have wore two inch shoe lifts to make him appear 6 ft 4 in, in his movies. But 6 ft 2 in sounds about right.
I beleive Clint has aways been 6 ft 2 in. He may have wore two inch shoe lifts to make him appear 6 ft 4 in, in his movies. But 6 ft 2 in sounds about right.
Hugh said on 19/Jan/09
6ft1-6ft2 nowadays. 6ft4 peak.
6ft1-6ft2 nowadays. 6ft4 peak.
Danimal said on 19/Jan/09
brotha says on 18/Jan/09
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
No it doesn't. Have you seen OTHER pics of Clint next to legit height people? He is struggling with a FLAT 6'0" today.
brotha says on 18/Jan/09
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
No it doesn't. Have you seen OTHER pics of Clint next to legit height people? He is struggling with a FLAT 6'0" today.
Danimal said on 19/Jan/09
washethatall says on 18/Jan/09
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
No, it's all ONE BIG JOKE!!! GOTCHA!!!! ;)
washethatall says on 18/Jan/09
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
No, it's all ONE BIG JOKE!!! GOTCHA!!!! ;)
brotha said on 18/Jan/09
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
washethatall said on 18/Jan/09
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
Bill said on 18/Jan/09
I'd place Clint at around 6'2" these days. That's my height. I met him on the set of Mystic River and we were standing face to face. He did have the hunched over posture of an older man though. I'd say he was easily 6'4" in his prime. Very impressive guy to meet in person. He just exudes coolness.
I'd place Clint at around 6'2" these days. That's my height. I met him on the set of Mystic River and we were standing face to face. He did have the hunched over posture of an older man though. I'd say he was easily 6'4" in his prime. Very impressive guy to meet in person. He just exudes coolness.
Danimal said on 17/Jan/09
Dave T. says on 15/Jan/09
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
First of all, Letterman is lucky if he is 6'1" today (he's in his 60's) and Clint could not have towered him, seeing Arnold is taller than Clint today based on recent pics of them together.
I given Clint 6'0"-6'1" today and 6'3"-6'4" in his prime.
Dave T. says on 15/Jan/09
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
First of all, Letterman is lucky if he is 6'1" today (he's in his 60's) and Clint could not have towered him, seeing Arnold is taller than Clint today based on recent pics of them together.
I given Clint 6'0"-6'1" today and 6'3"-6'4" in his prime.
Terry said on 17/Jan/09
I was reading an article in this mornings Daily Express newspaper (in the UK) about the rugby union plyer Simon Shaw. He said he used to be 6`9.5" but is now "only"(!!!) 6`8", and he is now 35. Spinal compression does happen with the taller men, particularly in physically active people. I saw Eastwood on Letterman a few days ago & he still looks a tall guy, around 6`2" to me. He clearly does walk with a slouch & with his spine "bent" to one side so that would explain a height loss of 2-3" quite easily in a 78 year old man who has walked like that all his life. just look at his films from the past. It`s not as uncommon as many repliers on this site think
I was reading an article in this mornings Daily Express newspaper (in the UK) about the rugby union plyer Simon Shaw. He said he used to be 6`9.5" but is now "only"(!!!) 6`8", and he is now 35. Spinal compression does happen with the taller men, particularly in physically active people. I saw Eastwood on Letterman a few days ago & he still looks a tall guy, around 6`2" to me. He clearly does walk with a slouch & with his spine "bent" to one side so that would explain a height loss of 2-3" quite easily in a 78 year old man who has walked like that all his life. just look at his films from the past. It`s not as uncommon as many repliers on this site think
glenn said on 17/Jan/09
usually a grump.always a good story with him.classics.ill get into that maybe in my next post.bed time for me.
usually a grump.always a good story with him.classics.ill get into that maybe in my next post.bed time for me.
clooby said on 17/Jan/09
It's hard to judge height on film and photos. Height can be tricky when comparing other actors, becasue one could be slouching slightly or standing away or on one knee to which will appear smaller.
It's hard to judge height on film and photos. Height can be tricky when comparing other actors, becasue one could be slouching slightly or standing away or on one knee to which will appear smaller.
Hugh said on 16/Jan/09
I hear he's auite a quite and reserved individual. What was your impression of him as a person, glenn?
I hear he's auite a quite and reserved individual. What was your impression of him as a person, glenn?
glenn said on 15/Jan/09
thats possible elf.but was the tallest one at a packed party i snuck into in 1993.by far.saw him today.surprised to see he was closer to 6-1 than the 6ft i saw in the last 5 years.
thats possible elf.but was the tallest one at a packed party i snuck into in 1993.by far.saw him today.surprised to see he was closer to 6-1 than the 6ft i saw in the last 5 years.
Dave T. said on 15/Jan/09
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
Elf said on 14/Jan/09
Glenn, when you say Eastwood was 6'4" in the early 90s I gather this is how he appeared in shoes? Is it likely that he was in reality 6'3" barefoot, the height he has always appeared to me up until the 90s?
Glenn, when you say Eastwood was 6'4" in the early 90s I gather this is how he appeared in shoes? Is it likely that he was in reality 6'3" barefoot, the height he has always appeared to me up until the 90s?
glenn said on 13/Jan/09
looks 6ft to me now in person.6-4 in the early 90s.
looks 6ft to me now in person.6-4 in the early 90s.
Ed(1) said on 13/Jan/09
I thought he looked all of 6ft tops in Gran Torino, and sometimes more like 5ft11. I suppose it's possible he's still 6ft1, but if I were to guess I'd say 6ft3 peak and scraping 6ft now. I've never met him though, so maybe he was a legit 6ft4 back in the day?
I thought he looked all of 6ft tops in Gran Torino, and sometimes more like 5ft11. I suppose it's possible he's still 6ft1, but if I were to guess I'd say 6ft3 peak and scraping 6ft now. I've never met him though, so maybe he was a legit 6ft4 back in the day?
Anonymous said on 13/Jan/09
seen a pic recently of jamie cullum with clint eastwood and eastwood was a whole head above him,cullum was not even up to his chin.cullum is 5 ft 5 right?
id say eastwood is 6ft 1 now and i doubt he was ever 6ft 4
seen a pic recently of jamie cullum with clint eastwood and eastwood was a whole head above him,cullum was not even up to his chin.cullum is 5 ft 5 right?
id say eastwood is 6ft 1 now and i doubt he was ever 6ft 4
James2 said on 13/Jan/09
looks about 6'1 in Gran Torino, but he was a beast back in the day
looks about 6'1 in Gran Torino, but he was a beast back in the day
Ali said on 9/Jan/09
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
Some think he still is 188 cm today. No way! He is
considerable shorter. He is about 183 cm now.
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
Some think he still is 188 cm today. No way! He is
considerable shorter. He is about 183 cm now.
Ali said on 9/Jan/09
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
Sam said on 8/Jan/09
Here is Clint with his main competitor at trying-to-shrink-the-most-from-being-6'4ish:
Click Here
Here is Clint with his main competitor at trying-to-shrink-the-most-from-being-6'4ish:
Click Here
adam said on 7/Jan/09
Clint has shrunk a lot. At least 3 inches, possibly 4. And Pitt wears elevator shoes so he looks 6-1.
Clint has shrunk a lot. At least 3 inches, possibly 4. And Pitt wears elevator shoes so he looks 6-1.
Newcomer said on 5/Jan/09
hey guys i just saw this picture here:
Click Here
Does this mean Clint has shrunk to Pitt's height or has Pitt gained height?
hey guys i just saw this picture here:
Click Here
Does this mean Clint has shrunk to Pitt's height or has Pitt gained height?
Hugh said on 5/Jan/09
Same with me Adam. My height fluctuates. I'm really 6ft2.75 but I have been described as high as 6ft4. BW 182cm! get real!
Same with me Adam. My height fluctuates. I'm really 6ft2.75 but I have been described as high as 6ft4. BW 182cm! get real!
Mister Lennon said on 1/Jan/09
Clint looked the same than Sutherland in Kelly's heroes. But,in space cowboys, Sutherland looked a little bit taller than Eastwood.
I still guess a solid 6'3 guy at peak for Clint, and now about 6'1 or 6'1 and a half.
Clint looked the same than Sutherland in Kelly's heroes. But,in space cowboys, Sutherland looked a little bit taller than Eastwood.
I still guess a solid 6'3 guy at peak for Clint, and now about 6'1 or 6'1 and a half.
adam said on 1/Jan/09
BW, the difference there isn
BW, the difference there isn
Hugh said on 14/Dec/08
I'd say Eastwood was a little over 6ft3 during the late 80's. These days I'm going to put my money on a daring 187cm.
I'd say Eastwood was a little over 6ft3 during the late 80's. These days I'm going to put my money on a daring 187cm.
Hugh said on 11/Dec/08
Yeah but by then Clint had lost a cnetimtere or so. But peakwise he was definately 6ft4.
Yeah but by then Clint had lost a cnetimtere or so. But peakwise he was definately 6ft4.
Mister Lennon said on 10/Dec/08
I agree with Neeson being a solid 6'4 guy.
But not with Eastwood being 6'4 too. He always looked a solid 6'3 guy, not a full 6'4, but close. In the dead pool, Neeson had an inch or close on clint.
I agree with Neeson being a solid 6'4 guy.
But not with Eastwood being 6'4 too. He always looked a solid 6'3 guy, not a full 6'4, but close. In the dead pool, Neeson had an inch or close on clint.
Lenad said on 10/Dec/08
A solid 189cm if not a bit more for his peak. Probably a proper 190cm guy back then.
A solid 189cm if not a bit more for his peak. Probably a proper 190cm guy back then.
mike c said on 9/Dec/08
How did he look, Glen?
How did he look, Glen?
glenn said on 9/Dec/08
sounds extreme,but possible.bumped into him in the street 2 weeks ago.
sounds extreme,but possible.bumped into him in the street 2 weeks ago.
adam said on 9/Dec/08
James, I agree. Neeson was definitely around 194cm peak. Clint was 6-4.
James, I agree. Neeson was definitely around 194cm peak. Clint was 6-4.
Baz said on 8/Dec/08
Dead Pool: exact same height on flat gound, chaps. Check it carefully. As I have said many times before, every actor in the world who has ever stood next to Mr E must be inflating their own heights by 2" as well. What are the chances? Slim & none, with slim being out of town!!! Article recently in the UK sunday paper The Observer had an interview with Mr E The interviewer said "he is one of the few actors who is as tall as he seems on screen"
Dead Pool: exact same height on flat gound, chaps. Check it carefully. As I have said many times before, every actor in the world who has ever stood next to Mr E must be inflating their own heights by 2" as well. What are the chances? Slim & none, with slim being out of town!!! Article recently in the UK sunday paper The Observer had an interview with Mr E The interviewer said "he is one of the few actors who is as tall as he seems on screen"
adam said on 7/Dec/08
You can`t spot a half an inch difference, Anonymous. But I agree with you -Clint was 6-4 peak.
You can`t spot a half an inch difference, Anonymous. But I agree with you -Clint was 6-4 peak.
Anonymous said on 5/Dec/08
James, I would say in that scene from The Dead Pool that the difference is not even an inch between Neeson and Clint. I would say half an inch at best. There's absolutely no question to me that Clint was once 6'4".
James, I would say in that scene from The Dead Pool that the difference is not even an inch between Neeson and Clint. I would say half an inch at best. There's absolutely no question to me that Clint was once 6'4".
adam said on 29/Nov/08
George Kennedy was a huge man. At least 6-4. If Clint was the same height as him then there`s nothing to argue about.
George Kennedy was a huge man. At least 6-4. If Clint was the same height as him then there`s nothing to argue about.
Baz said on 27/Nov/08
Harry. how do you explain Eastwood being the exact same height as both George Kennedy & Greg Walcott, who are both known to be 6'4". Unless they, like eeryone, is lying about their height. Highly unlikely.
Harry. how do you explain Eastwood being the exact same height as both George Kennedy & Greg Walcott, who are both known to be 6'4". Unless they, like eeryone, is lying about their height. Highly unlikely.
harry said on 27/Nov/08
Please refer to Click Here and see an old picture of Clint and Arnie together - I rest my case, the guy is 6'2". Now compare it with the new recent pictures of Arnie and Clint gracing the net;there is no noticeable difference is there. He hasn't shrunk or suffered back problems - come on you people. He's a hollywood icon for God's Sake. It's what you want to believe. It's all about the Clint mystique guys. Now, I'm sure your'e all going to say yeah Harry, whatever man, why don't you put a sock in it, oh, and you may also say well, these pitures have been messed with and people are always creating misleading images etc, on the net. But I think it is plain to see here that the guy was never 6ft4in tall;always has been 6'2", and may I add;he still is!
Please refer to Click Here and see an old picture of Clint and Arnie together - I rest my case, the guy is 6'2". Now compare it with the new recent pictures of Arnie and Clint gracing the net;there is no noticeable difference is there. He hasn't shrunk or suffered back problems - come on you people. He's a hollywood icon for God's Sake. It's what you want to believe. It's all about the Clint mystique guys. Now, I'm sure your'e all going to say yeah Harry, whatever man, why don't you put a sock in it, oh, and you may also say well, these pitures have been messed with and people are always creating misleading images etc, on the net. But I think it is plain to see here that the guy was never 6ft4in tall;always has been 6'2", and may I add;he still is!
Mike said on 27/Nov/08
...by the way, maybe more like 409 or 50 years ago, 6'2 WAS really big. My uncle had a TERRIBLE time buying clothes and shoes. Nevertheless, I'd still put Eastwood at 6'4 peak, and no way is he just 6 foot now.
...by the way, maybe more like 409 or 50 years ago, 6'2 WAS really big. My uncle had a TERRIBLE time buying clothes and shoes. Nevertheless, I'd still put Eastwood at 6'4 peak, and no way is he just 6 foot now.
Mike said on 27/Nov/08
...I've yet to read about "well documented back problems". Not saying they're not true, but I haven't read one word about Eastwood having back problems, and I'm a 43 year old who keeps tabs on various stars I grew up watching, like Garner (well documented back problems, and now stroke).
...I've yet to read about "well documented back problems". Not saying they're not true, but I haven't read one word about Eastwood having back problems, and I'm a 43 year old who keeps tabs on various stars I grew up watching, like Garner (well documented back problems, and now stroke).
Scott said on 26/Nov/08
In 'Escape From Alcatraz' Eastwood looked a solid 2 inches taller than Patrick McGoohan who is definitely at least 6'1.
CE was possibly 6'3.75 in his prime.
But I think we can all forgive this icon for rounding up a couple of mm?
In 'Escape From Alcatraz' Eastwood looked a solid 2 inches taller than Patrick McGoohan who is definitely at least 6'1.
CE was possibly 6'3.75 in his prime.
But I think we can all forgive this icon for rounding up a couple of mm?
Baz said on 26/Nov/08
Adam: someone talkng sense at last! The posture aspect is spot on. Mr E always walked in a slouchy way & his spine seemed to curve both inwards & to the right, making him walk "short". I was watching the Eiger Sanction the other day & when Mr E was standing nose to nose with Greg Walcott, who IS 6'4", he is exactly the same height. The same applies to scenes with big George Kennedy. Yet, when he walks next to Kennedy he is shorter due to his posture when walking.
Also, a good point about Van Cleef. He, like every actor in the world, must be lying about his height by 2 inches if Mr E is only 6'2". What are the odds on every actor being 2" shorter than listed? About the same as me swiming to the moon! Doubters, get over it. The man WAS 6'4" & due to well documented back problems is between 6'1" & 6'2" - FACT!!! Just look at scenes with other tall actors on flat ground. Even in the oft quoted Dead Pool, look at the scene outside the freezer warehouse when him & Neeson first meet. Mr E looks 2" shorter when walking next to Neeson, but when he stands next to him he is the same height. I`m sure we'll have the "he wears lifts" or "he was on stilts" cobblers that some seem to dream up but, as said before, LOOK CAREFULLY!!! 6'4" as was, bit less now. Cheers guys!
Adam: someone talkng sense at last! The posture aspect is spot on. Mr E always walked in a slouchy way & his spine seemed to curve both inwards & to the right, making him walk "short". I was watching the Eiger Sanction the other day & when Mr E was standing nose to nose with Greg Walcott, who IS 6'4", he is exactly the same height. The same applies to scenes with big George Kennedy. Yet, when he walks next to Kennedy he is shorter due to his posture when walking.
Also, a good point about Van Cleef. He, like every actor in the world, must be lying about his height by 2 inches if Mr E is only 6'2". What are the odds on every actor being 2" shorter than listed? About the same as me swiming to the moon! Doubters, get over it. The man WAS 6'4" & due to well documented back problems is between 6'1" & 6'2" - FACT!!! Just look at scenes with other tall actors on flat ground. Even in the oft quoted Dead Pool, look at the scene outside the freezer warehouse when him & Neeson first meet. Mr E looks 2" shorter when walking next to Neeson, but when he stands next to him he is the same height. I`m sure we'll have the "he wears lifts" or "he was on stilts" cobblers that some seem to dream up but, as said before, LOOK CAREFULLY!!! 6'4" as was, bit less now. Cheers guys!
adam said on 26/Nov/08
Harry 6-2 wasn
Harry 6-2 wasn
harry said on 26/Nov/08
Look Eastwood was and always has been 6'2". He's always looked tall, because that is tall. Average height for UK guys 5'9" (1.75m);average height for US guys 5'10" 1.78m). Eastwood was peak 6'2.5" peak up to his 60's, then by now 78years plus he has lost perhaps an inch!. Still 6'1 -6'1.5 (1.85-187m)now today. Watched all 3 of the western trilogy from the 60's. You can palinly see he was about the magic 6'4" in his cowboy heels. I agree George E. My dad is in his early 70's and he's still a solid 6'2". I know that he's only lost about an inch. Because I can look him level in the eye in the last few years.
what about John cleese another famous 6'4" celebrity he knocking 70 and he hasn't shrunk! Look on Bradd Pitt's Celeb height chart;even George clooney has admitted that the guys height can change to 6'1"(which means he's wearing lifts. This 6'4" business is something that has got in to the peoples 'subconcious psychy;a permeated myth that is all part of the Clint Eastwood mythology. He was 6'2" 1.88m. Today this is still recognised as tall, but over 30 years ago. 6'2" was incredibly tall.
Look Eastwood was and always has been 6'2". He's always looked tall, because that is tall. Average height for UK guys 5'9" (1.75m);average height for US guys 5'10" 1.78m). Eastwood was peak 6'2.5" peak up to his 60's, then by now 78years plus he has lost perhaps an inch!. Still 6'1 -6'1.5 (1.85-187m)now today. Watched all 3 of the western trilogy from the 60's. You can palinly see he was about the magic 6'4" in his cowboy heels. I agree George E. My dad is in his early 70's and he's still a solid 6'2". I know that he's only lost about an inch. Because I can look him level in the eye in the last few years.
what about John cleese another famous 6'4" celebrity he knocking 70 and he hasn't shrunk! Look on Bradd Pitt's Celeb height chart;even George clooney has admitted that the guys height can change to 6'1"(which means he's wearing lifts. This 6'4" business is something that has got in to the peoples 'subconcious psychy;a permeated myth that is all part of the Clint Eastwood mythology. He was 6'2" 1.88m. Today this is still recognised as tall, but over 30 years ago. 6'2" was incredibly tall.
Mike said on 25/Nov/08
...I just looked at the much talked about Eastwood/Pitt pic. No way. I don't believe it for one second. What...Eastwood is now like 5'10?? No way. It's either trick photography, Pitt is on a box, Pitt is wearing lifts or we're all collectively nuts. But no way is Pitt bigger than Dirty Harry.
...I just looked at the much talked about Eastwood/Pitt pic. No way. I don't believe it for one second. What...Eastwood is now like 5'10?? No way. It's either trick photography, Pitt is on a box, Pitt is wearing lifts or we're all collectively nuts. But no way is Pitt bigger than Dirty Harry.
Mister Lennon said on 25/Nov/08
Danimal, why i could want that Clint is shorter than he is?? Thats is non sense. I posted that because i think that and that is my impression of his movies at his peak, a strong 6'3.
Danimal, why i could want that Clint is shorter than he is?? Thats is non sense. I posted that because i think that and that is my impression of his movies at his peak, a strong 6'3.
George H. said on 25/Nov/08
Pitt is a known heel (outside) and lift (inside) wearer. Just compare him to Morgan Freeman in Seven where he's several inches shorter and then a year or something later he and Freeman were photographed at an award show or premiere and Pitt was about half an inch TALLER than Freeman! And don't give me that **** that Freeman is in his seventies and therefore lost height, because not everybody loses height as they get older. I have plenty examples of that amongst my friends and relatives.
Pitt is a known heel (outside) and lift (inside) wearer. Just compare him to Morgan Freeman in Seven where he's several inches shorter and then a year or something later he and Freeman were photographed at an award show or premiere and Pitt was about half an inch TALLER than Freeman! And don't give me that **** that Freeman is in his seventies and therefore lost height, because not everybody loses height as they get older. I have plenty examples of that amongst my friends and relatives.
Danimal said on 24/Nov/08
Mister Lennon says on 21/Nov/08
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
You don't think he was, or you just don't want him to be?
Mister Lennon says on 21/Nov/08
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
You don't think he was, or you just don't want him to be?
Elf said on 24/Nov/08
The pics with Pitt really are freaky. He looks no taller than 5 ft 11. I'd have expected him to have towered above Pitt. Yet Pitt looks 1.5 inches taller. Weird. How could a genuine 6 ft 4 inch man have lost 4-5 inches in height? Back trouble or not that is an extreme amount of height to lose. Christopher Lee is even older but does he look near 6 foot flat these days? No! Lee is still 6'3" at least. Except for the odd scene I think most of us agree that Eastwood was never a full 6'4" barefoot. In most of his films he always looked 6'3" max I think, perhaps 6'4" in large cowboy boots only which is what he was probably measured in. If I had never seen him before and saw him on film for the first time I'd have estimated 6'2 and a half" - 6'3".
The pics with Pitt really are freaky. He looks no taller than 5 ft 11. I'd have expected him to have towered above Pitt. Yet Pitt looks 1.5 inches taller. Weird. How could a genuine 6 ft 4 inch man have lost 4-5 inches in height? Back trouble or not that is an extreme amount of height to lose. Christopher Lee is even older but does he look near 6 foot flat these days? No! Lee is still 6'3" at least. Except for the odd scene I think most of us agree that Eastwood was never a full 6'4" barefoot. In most of his films he always looked 6'3" max I think, perhaps 6'4" in large cowboy boots only which is what he was probably measured in. If I had never seen him before and saw him on film for the first time I'd have estimated 6'2 and a half" - 6'3".
adam said on 24/Nov/08
In DIRTY HARRY he is taller than the 6-3 Gonzales guy. And once again: He was taller than Lee Van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonte, Donald Sutherland (?), Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman and so on... The man was 6-4 peak. Nowadays a lot shorter.
In DIRTY HARRY he is taller than the 6-3 Gonzales guy. And once again: He was taller than Lee Van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonte, Donald Sutherland (?), Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman and so on... The man was 6-4 peak. Nowadays a lot shorter.
harry said on 24/Nov/08
That picture of Pitt next to Clint angelina, we really don't know if they were fooling around, you know Bradd could have been on tip toe, sp giving the appearance of being taller. we can't see the floor. He was probably goofing around and stood for the picture stretched up to 4inches on his tip toes. It may have been a little joke they were secretly having with each other. Mind you know, having said this, what about those famous pictures recently from the guardian with Arnold Scwhenegger(apologies for the spelling), what was going on there: they looked level height. Very strange indeed. But I still maintain that he was around 189cm peak. Watched him in Dirty Harry and The Enforcer again last night. You've got to admit the guys bloody class isn't he.
That picture of Pitt next to Clint angelina, we really don't know if they were fooling around, you know Bradd could have been on tip toe, sp giving the appearance of being taller. we can't see the floor. He was probably goofing around and stood for the picture stretched up to 4inches on his tip toes. It may have been a little joke they were secretly having with each other. Mind you know, having said this, what about those famous pictures recently from the guardian with Arnold Scwhenegger(apologies for the spelling), what was going on there: they looked level height. Very strange indeed. But I still maintain that he was around 189cm peak. Watched him in Dirty Harry and The Enforcer again last night. You've got to admit the guys bloody class isn't he.
Hugh said on 23/Nov/08
He still looks close to 6ft2 at times. I think 186-187cm is possible.
He still looks close to 6ft2 at times. I think 186-187cm is possible.
Mister Lennon said on 21/Nov/08
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
adam said on 21/Nov/08
Harry, good post but I disagree: Clint was more than 6-2 peak. And yes, he has lost a HUGE amount of height. That is extremelly rare but not impossible by no means.
That what you told about height loss is pretty much true but as usual -things won`t go by the book in every single cases. Clint has lost over 3 inches now, I think it`s pretty obvious.
If he were only 6-2, then we would have to downgrade so many actors. Around 6-4 peak and nowadays barely six feet or something. Life is so very strange.
Harry, good post but I disagree: Clint was more than 6-2 peak. And yes, he has lost a HUGE amount of height. That is extremelly rare but not impossible by no means.
That what you told about height loss is pretty much true but as usual -things won`t go by the book in every single cases. Clint has lost over 3 inches now, I think it`s pretty obvious.
If he were only 6-2, then we would have to downgrade so many actors. Around 6-4 peak and nowadays barely six feet or something. Life is so very strange.
harry said on 21/Nov/08
You know, I think it's pretty obvious that the guy was(as a younger man,188 cm),always has been throughout his entire working life. According to the medical association: men lose 1cm after 40years of age a decade. A healthy male may just lose 1". But sometimes due to bad bones(osteoperosis), this may be more extreme, something like 3" which is a significant amount. Height loss increases more after 70 years of age. Now Eastwood is 78 plus, so I think he may have lost uo to 5cm in all. (2"). But he has always been a healthy guy, so he may only have lost 1". So, today he is possibly 6'0" 183cm to 6'1" 185cm barefoot. Once again, I think he has always been 6'2" until about his 70's with the bodies natural shrinkage. 1" to 3" shrinkage can occur depending on the individual. 3" shrinkage usually only happens in the more extreme cases of bad genes. That picture with Brad Pitt makes him appear top be at least 1.5" shorter than Pitt. But if Clint has shrunk at least 2" making him 6'1" in shoes, then it is possible for a 5'10" bloke with the appropiate lifts to slightly be a shade taller that Clint. I think Brad Pitt is and has always been around the 5'10" mark.
You know, I think it's pretty obvious that the guy was(as a younger man,188 cm),always has been throughout his entire working life. According to the medical association: men lose 1cm after 40years of age a decade. A healthy male may just lose 1". But sometimes due to bad bones(osteoperosis), this may be more extreme, something like 3" which is a significant amount. Height loss increases more after 70 years of age. Now Eastwood is 78 plus, so I think he may have lost uo to 5cm in all. (2"). But he has always been a healthy guy, so he may only have lost 1". So, today he is possibly 6'0" 183cm to 6'1" 185cm barefoot. Once again, I think he has always been 6'2" until about his 70's with the bodies natural shrinkage. 1" to 3" shrinkage can occur depending on the individual. 3" shrinkage usually only happens in the more extreme cases of bad genes. That picture with Brad Pitt makes him appear top be at least 1.5" shorter than Pitt. But if Clint has shrunk at least 2" making him 6'1" in shoes, then it is possible for a 5'10" bloke with the appropiate lifts to slightly be a shade taller that Clint. I think Brad Pitt is and has always been around the 5'10" mark.
glenn said on 20/Nov/08
6-4 in 1992.tallest man at a party.towered everyone and made it obvious.now seems 6ft to me.so yeah,6-5 with the dress shoes.i agree,in movies he looked 6-3.
6-4 in 1992.tallest man at a party.towered everyone and made it obvious.now seems 6ft to me.so yeah,6-5 with the dress shoes.i agree,in movies he looked 6-3.
Ed T. said on 20/Nov/08
Ed(1), I don't think your wrong. Although, I might give Eastwood a 6'3.5" peak as opposed to a 6'3" flat. I think your pretty accurate with a 6'1-6'2" impression of Van Cleef.
Although I have not seen "Any Which Way You Can", 1980, in some time, I had the impression that Eastwood was not that much taller than William Smith ( who played Jack Wilson ). I have seen William Smith listed at 6'2". I did not get the impression that Clint was a full two inches taller than Smith ( maybe one inch or a little more than one inch). I could be wrong, as it has been a while since I have seen that film.
Ed(1), I don't think your wrong. Although, I might give Eastwood a 6'3.5" peak as opposed to a 6'3" flat. I think your pretty accurate with a 6'1-6'2" impression of Van Cleef.
Although I have not seen "Any Which Way You Can", 1980, in some time, I had the impression that Eastwood was not that much taller than William Smith ( who played Jack Wilson ). I have seen William Smith listed at 6'2". I did not get the impression that Clint was a full two inches taller than Smith ( maybe one inch or a little more than one inch). I could be wrong, as it has been a while since I have seen that film.
Ed(1) said on 20/Nov/08
Maybe he was 6ft4, but I can't say I've ever seen it, except for in his western films when he wore cowboy boots! In my opinion the majority of the time Eastwood has looked 6ft2-6ft3 tops, and I honestly can say I've never got the impression of a legit 6ft4 guy like Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, or Christopher Reeve when watching him on screen! Maybe I'm wrong though?
Glenn you said he looked 6ft4 when you saw him, how long ago was this? Also is that 6ft4 with his shoes on, or more like 6ft5 making him 6ft4 barefoot?
Adam,
Van Cleef looked 6ft1-6ft2 to me, so if Eastwood was pushing 6ft3 back in the late 60's-mid 70's, that's how he could appear taller!
Maybe he was 6ft4, but I can't say I've ever seen it, except for in his western films when he wore cowboy boots! In my opinion the majority of the time Eastwood has looked 6ft2-6ft3 tops, and I honestly can say I've never got the impression of a legit 6ft4 guy like Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, or Christopher Reeve when watching him on screen! Maybe I'm wrong though?
Glenn you said he looked 6ft4 when you saw him, how long ago was this? Also is that 6ft4 with his shoes on, or more like 6ft5 making him 6ft4 barefoot?
Adam,
Van Cleef looked 6ft1-6ft2 to me, so if Eastwood was pushing 6ft3 back in the late 60's-mid 70's, that's how he could appear taller!
Brad said on 20/Nov/08
He was taller than Lee Van Cleef who wasn't lower than 6' 2". Put the cowboy boots on: he was a building in '65. He owned all the Italian & Spain actors big.
He was taller than Lee Van Cleef who wasn't lower than 6' 2". Put the cowboy boots on: he was a building in '65. He owned all the Italian & Spain actors big.
Ed(1) said on 19/Nov/08
In The Dead Pool he looked to be about 1-1.5" shorter then Neeson(6ft4), who was slouching as usual in that film! I could see him at 6ft2.5 in 1988, with a consistent decline since then. I guess it's possible Neeson could have been 6ft4.5?
Yeah that pic with Pitt his hysterical! Pitt looks to have him by 2", so that really makes me wonder about Eastwood's current height. If Pitt is 5ft11, and was wearing say 2" heeled boots he'd be around 6ft1, making Eastwood only 5ft11 these days! That seems off! I don't know what to make of that photo, because I seriously doubt Pitt has 4" lifts! LOL
In The Dead Pool he looked to be about 1-1.5" shorter then Neeson(6ft4), who was slouching as usual in that film! I could see him at 6ft2.5 in 1988, with a consistent decline since then. I guess it's possible Neeson could have been 6ft4.5?
Yeah that pic with Pitt his hysterical! Pitt looks to have him by 2", so that really makes me wonder about Eastwood's current height. If Pitt is 5ft11, and was wearing say 2" heeled boots he'd be around 6ft1, making Eastwood only 5ft11 these days! That seems off! I don't know what to make of that photo, because I seriously doubt Pitt has 4" lifts! LOL
adam said on 19/Nov/08
Then how do you explain that he was taller than Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef was according to Frank2 a close 6-3!
Then how do you explain that he was taller than Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef was according to Frank2 a close 6-3!
Ed(1) said on 19/Nov/08
Magnum Force was on TV last night, and to be honest Clint looked maybe 6ft3 tops in that film, and that was with his bushy hair! I really have a hard time buying the 6ft4 peak height. Maybe he was that in cowboy boots, but barefoot I don't think so! That would make him 6ft5.5 6ft6 in his cowboy boots back in the late 60's-mid 70's!
Now a days he looks around 6ft. Check out this recent pic with Brad Pitt, who's definitely wearing some serious lifts? LOL
Click Here
Magnum Force was on TV last night, and to be honest Clint looked maybe 6ft3 tops in that film, and that was with his bushy hair! I really have a hard time buying the 6ft4 peak height. Maybe he was that in cowboy boots, but barefoot I don't think so! That would make him 6ft5.5 6ft6 in his cowboy boots back in the late 60's-mid 70's!
Now a days he looks around 6ft. Check out this recent pic with Brad Pitt, who's definitely wearing some serious lifts? LOL
Click Here
RisingForce said on 19/Nov/08
Well he was 63 then so it's possible.
Well he was 63 then so it's possible.
RisingForce said on 16/Nov/08
In this article from 1993 Clint is listed as 6'3"
Click Here
Then again Charlie Sheen is listed as 5'10" in it and Jason Scott Lee is listed as 5'11" and those probably aren't correct.
In this article from 1993 Clint is listed as 6'3"
Click Here
Then again Charlie Sheen is listed as 5'10" in it and Jason Scott Lee is listed as 5'11" and those probably aren't correct.
adam said on 16/Nov/08
Eastwood was 6-4. What is this BS that he DIDNT look 6-4 in the Dollars trilogy. The man was about two inches taller than Lee Van Cleef who isn`t under 6-2. Frank2 even said that he thought that Van Cleef was closer to 6-3!
Eastwood was 6-4. What is this BS that he DIDNT look 6-4 in the Dollars trilogy. The man was about two inches taller than Lee Van Cleef who isn`t under 6-2. Frank2 even said that he thought that Van Cleef was closer to 6-3!
Elf said on 15/Nov/08
Just seen in the line of Fire. The scene where Eastwood and Dylan McDermott enter the apartment Eastwood looks every inch 6'4". He is roughly two inches off the door frame and looks a full four inches taller than his co-star. He looks like a 6'4" guy in that example
Just seen in the line of Fire. The scene where Eastwood and Dylan McDermott enter the apartment Eastwood looks every inch 6'4". He is roughly two inches off the door frame and looks a full four inches taller than his co-star. He looks like a 6'4" guy in that example
Russ said on 12/Nov/08
OK Eastwood fans. I am going to tell a true story (again), that I posted here about a year ago. Way back in the 1970's I was on camping trip with my friends. We were in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. As I was walking into a sporting goods store, I saw some people coming out of the store. I opened and held the door for them. As I looked up, I realized it was Clint Eastwood (with a gal pal). He looked at me and said, "Thank you". I replied with, "You're welcome, Mr Eastwood". As they were walking away, I heard the woman say, "Who was that?". I think Clint said, "I don't know..".
As I entered the sporting goods store, some of the gals inside were going crazy with excitement. Yet, some people didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Anyway, Clint was not only tall, he was pretty big across the shoulders: a good 6'3" and not skinny.
OK Eastwood fans. I am going to tell a true story (again), that I posted here about a year ago. Way back in the 1970's I was on camping trip with my friends. We were in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. As I was walking into a sporting goods store, I saw some people coming out of the store. I opened and held the door for them. As I looked up, I realized it was Clint Eastwood (with a gal pal). He looked at me and said, "Thank you". I replied with, "You're welcome, Mr Eastwood". As they were walking away, I heard the woman say, "Who was that?". I think Clint said, "I don't know..".
As I entered the sporting goods store, some of the gals inside were going crazy with excitement. Yet, some people didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Anyway, Clint was not only tall, he was pretty big across the shoulders: a good 6'3" and not skinny.
Hugh said on 11/Nov/08
In Leung's defense. Freeman was taller than Clint in Million Dollar Baby. As of 1994 Clint was 6ft3 to 6ft3.5.
In Leung's defense. Freeman was taller than Clint in Million Dollar Baby. As of 1994 Clint was 6ft3 to 6ft3.5.
Leung said on 10/Nov/08
If I recall correctly Freeman is taller than Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby.
If I recall correctly Freeman is taller than Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby.
Elf said on 10/Nov/08
I agree Stevo
I agree Stevo
stevo said on 10/Nov/08
wow 6'4? he never looked it. id buy 6'2. 6 ' 3 is pushing it.
wow 6'4? he never looked it. id buy 6'2. 6 ' 3 is pushing it.
Elf said on 6/Nov/08
Interesting Harry. I;ve always seen Dylan Mcdermot as under 6 foot, so it wouldn't be difficult for Eastwood to tower above him. This is exactly what I'm referring to when a lot of the time Eastwood looks 6'2" rather than 6'4" compared to other people but occasionally there are scenes when he looks very tall. In most of Bridges over Madison County he looked 6'2" rather than 6'4" in 1995 too. 6'4" is a very high claim, but we know this couldn't have been a genuine barefoot measurment otherwise he would consistently be looking 6'5"+ and be close to Fred Thompson's height.
Interesting Harry. I;ve always seen Dylan Mcdermot as under 6 foot, so it wouldn't be difficult for Eastwood to tower above him. This is exactly what I'm referring to when a lot of the time Eastwood looks 6'2" rather than 6'4" compared to other people but occasionally there are scenes when he looks very tall. In most of Bridges over Madison County he looked 6'2" rather than 6'4" in 1995 too. 6'4" is a very high claim, but we know this couldn't have been a genuine barefoot measurment otherwise he would consistently be looking 6'5"+ and be close to Fred Thompson's height.
Vibram said on 6/Nov/08
Eastwood still looked peak height of 6ft3.75 in the late 1970's and early 80's when he was 50 and began bulking up for the Alcatraz and Any Which Way films.
Even at 62/63 he had slimmed somewhat but looked 3.5" taller than 5ft11 Dylan McDermott in the film In The Line Of Fire (1993). He began hitting the gym again and looked more muscular at the grand age of 70 in Space Cowboys where his bent spine was obvious. Looks 6ft these days, so just under 4" loss in total.
Eastwood still looked peak height of 6ft3.75 in the late 1970's and early 80's when he was 50 and began bulking up for the Alcatraz and Any Which Way films.
Even at 62/63 he had slimmed somewhat but looked 3.5" taller than 5ft11 Dylan McDermott in the film In The Line Of Fire (1993). He began hitting the gym again and looked more muscular at the grand age of 70 in Space Cowboys where his bent spine was obvious. Looks 6ft these days, so just under 4" loss in total.
harry said on 6/Nov/08
I wonder if Mr Eastwood has ever visited this sight. Now I would love to hear his comments. But we know that he'd say he was 6'4". Dammit!
I wonder if Mr Eastwood has ever visited this sight. Now I would love to hear his comments. But we know that he'd say he was 6'4". Dammit!
harry said on 6/Nov/08
Exactly Elf. I've just watched in the "line of Fire"(another great film from the old pro). His co stars in thatDylan Mcdermot(listed as 6'), and Rene russo (5'8") respevtively give a great indication to the tall man's stature. Next to Rene(scene at the window he looks 6'2". There are the other scenes of Clint walking down corridors next to Dylan Mcdermot were he looks every bit the 6'4". But, then we get other scenes were there only appears to be a small 2inches between them. I don't believe that dylan mcdermot is 6'0". Does any body else feel this to be true? Oh, and lest we forget the brief, but interseting height discrepancy between Fred Thompson and Clint towards the end of the film. Now Fred Dalton Thompson is listed a a giant 6'6" of a man. but others have said that this is more like 6'4.5". there is atleast 4" height difference there. I am interested though to find out how this 1.88 height came from regarding Mr Eastwood - it just appeared.
Exactly Elf. I've just watched in the "line of Fire"(another great film from the old pro). His co stars in thatDylan Mcdermot(listed as 6'), and Rene russo (5'8") respevtively give a great indication to the tall man's stature. Next to Rene(scene at the window he looks 6'2". There are the other scenes of Clint walking down corridors next to Dylan Mcdermot were he looks every bit the 6'4". But, then we get other scenes were there only appears to be a small 2inches between them. I don't believe that dylan mcdermot is 6'0". Does any body else feel this to be true? Oh, and lest we forget the brief, but interseting height discrepancy between Fred Thompson and Clint towards the end of the film. Now Fred Dalton Thompson is listed a a giant 6'6" of a man. but others have said that this is more like 6'4.5". there is atleast 4" height difference there. I am interested though to find out how this 1.88 height came from regarding Mr Eastwood - it just appeared.
Elf said on 4/Nov/08
I agree completely Harry. In old Hollywood even today, there is often the 2 inch inflation trick, many stars are billed two inches taller than they actually are. I personally think Eastwood though is not the sort of man who would exaggerate his height. I genuinely think he was 6'3 barefoot and 6 ft 4 in footwear at his peak the same as yourself. This is perhaps how he was always measured. Facing the facts if Eastwood was a genuine 6'4 barefoot, he'd be an easy 6'5 in normal shoes all of the time, possibly 6 ft 6 in boots for many of his films. He has never looked this tall except for the odd scene in the Dollars trilogy when he was wearing a hat and had on thick boots but he was clearly never as tall as this. If he was 6ft2.5 -6 ft 3 barefoot he'd be hitting bang on 6'4 for every time he is on film and for most of his life.
I agree completely Harry. In old Hollywood even today, there is often the 2 inch inflation trick, many stars are billed two inches taller than they actually are. I personally think Eastwood though is not the sort of man who would exaggerate his height. I genuinely think he was 6'3 barefoot and 6 ft 4 in footwear at his peak the same as yourself. This is perhaps how he was always measured. Facing the facts if Eastwood was a genuine 6'4 barefoot, he'd be an easy 6'5 in normal shoes all of the time, possibly 6 ft 6 in boots for many of his films. He has never looked this tall except for the odd scene in the Dollars trilogy when he was wearing a hat and had on thick boots but he was clearly never as tall as this. If he was 6ft2.5 -6 ft 3 barefoot he'd be hitting bang on 6'4 for every time he is on film and for most of his life.
harry said on 4/Nov/08
Baz: Interesting stuff, yeah, but, How would Sondra Locke really know his true height unless she phsyically wipped out the steel tape measure and and asked him. Don't forget Clint was probably 6'2.5" as I have said, So, he was practically a giant of a man to her. Why should she question this? But there is a brilliant scene- as you will know - which is a great indicator of his physical stature: the one in the bedroom where he is stood opposite his female co-star(both in bare feet, he is in his underwear). Now I don't know the height of the female actress and her name as escaped my memory, but she came up to the top of his eyebrows. Making her a good 5'8" or 5'9". But having said all that though, wasn't that a great film?
Baz: Interesting stuff, yeah, but, How would Sondra Locke really know his true height unless she phsyically wipped out the steel tape measure and and asked him. Don't forget Clint was probably 6'2.5" as I have said, So, he was practically a giant of a man to her. Why should she question this? But there is a brilliant scene- as you will know - which is a great indicator of his physical stature: the one in the bedroom where he is stood opposite his female co-star(both in bare feet, he is in his underwear). Now I don't know the height of the female actress and her name as escaped my memory, but she came up to the top of his eyebrows. Making her a good 5'8" or 5'9". But having said all that though, wasn't that a great film?
Elf said on 2/Nov/08
Yup I watched Pale Rider last night and Clint is roughly half an inch taller than Morirarty. Yet both men in watching them don't look as tall as 6'4, certainly not Morirarty. They look 6'3 max. In some of the scenes from a distance although there is no facial resemblance, Clint's figure reminded me a bit of Julian Glover who I believe is 6'3.
Yup I watched Pale Rider last night and Clint is roughly half an inch taller than Morirarty. Yet both men in watching them don't look as tall as 6'4, certainly not Morirarty. They look 6'3 max. In some of the scenes from a distance although there is no facial resemblance, Clint's figure reminded me a bit of Julian Glover who I believe is 6'3.
Elf said on 1/Nov/08
I've been watching a few of Clints older films recently. The boots and the hat and long coat can really give an impression of being 2-3 inches taller he really does look 6ft 4 - 6 ft 5 in Dollars trilogy. but I've looked at scenes with him in without a hat and it isn't impossible to think he may have been near this height at his peak. He measured up to all the guys who were supposedly 6'4. About half an inch shorter than George Kennedy in 1975 who I;ve mostly seen listed as 6'4.5, he actually looked about half an inch taller than Moriarty, and all the guys like Vincent Price and Donald Sutherland who were listed at 6'4 at peak and it always seems to be about right. Yet i often see pictures of Clint in normal clothes with family members or other actors outside of films and he nevers looks the towering figure you'd expect from a full 6'4 guy even before he lost a few inches due to back problems. I stand by the belief that he was genuinely measured 6'4 in shoes/boots when he was a lot younger and in reality stood 6ft2.5 - 6'3 maximum barefoot at peak as did many of the guys given a full 6'4. This way it would be easy to appear 6'4 throughout much of his career alongside other cast member who were probably measured the same way. A genuine 6 ft 4 barefoot and with no tippy toes and a tight marker on the top of the head really is very very tall check it out. If he was this height he would look towering to guys even who are 6ft, but he didn't and as rightly said below many of the guys in those Italian westerns were typically short guys that you see in countries like Italy and Spain. I'm 6 ft 1.5 barefoot and with Timberland boots and good posture I am verging on 6'3 and look it to most but I'm not! BTW anybody know the height of Mario Brega, the tall, fat prison guard from GBU? I've heard he was between 6ft2-6 ft4 but Clint looked a little taller.
I've been watching a few of Clints older films recently. The boots and the hat and long coat can really give an impression of being 2-3 inches taller he really does look 6ft 4 - 6 ft 5 in Dollars trilogy. but I've looked at scenes with him in without a hat and it isn't impossible to think he may have been near this height at his peak. He measured up to all the guys who were supposedly 6'4. About half an inch shorter than George Kennedy in 1975 who I;ve mostly seen listed as 6'4.5, he actually looked about half an inch taller than Moriarty, and all the guys like Vincent Price and Donald Sutherland who were listed at 6'4 at peak and it always seems to be about right. Yet i often see pictures of Clint in normal clothes with family members or other actors outside of films and he nevers looks the towering figure you'd expect from a full 6'4 guy even before he lost a few inches due to back problems. I stand by the belief that he was genuinely measured 6'4 in shoes/boots when he was a lot younger and in reality stood 6ft2.5 - 6'3 maximum barefoot at peak as did many of the guys given a full 6'4. This way it would be easy to appear 6'4 throughout much of his career alongside other cast member who were probably measured the same way. A genuine 6 ft 4 barefoot and with no tippy toes and a tight marker on the top of the head really is very very tall check it out. If he was this height he would look towering to guys even who are 6ft, but he didn't and as rightly said below many of the guys in those Italian westerns were typically short guys that you see in countries like Italy and Spain. I'm 6 ft 1.5 barefoot and with Timberland boots and good posture I am verging on 6'3 and look it to most but I'm not! BTW anybody know the height of Mario Brega, the tall, fat prison guard from GBU? I've heard he was between 6ft2-6 ft4 but Clint looked a little taller.
Baz said on 1/Nov/08
Harry. You should read the unauthorised biography of Clint written a few years back. In it, people who have become "enemies", eg Sondra Locke, have good reason to say that he wore lifts, he`s not really that tall, etc etc. They all state what a tall bloke he was. Also, have you really watched Play Misty properly? He looks ridiculously tall in that. The bloke was 6'4" in his prime; be in no doubt of that. He has curvature of the spine, as some doctor blokey said on here months ago. Look at his posture & that gives away why his height has suffered.
Harry. You should read the unauthorised biography of Clint written a few years back. In it, people who have become "enemies", eg Sondra Locke, have good reason to say that he wore lifts, he`s not really that tall, etc etc. They all state what a tall bloke he was. Also, have you really watched Play Misty properly? He looks ridiculously tall in that. The bloke was 6'4" in his prime; be in no doubt of that. He has curvature of the spine, as some doctor blokey said on here months ago. Look at his posture & that gives away why his height has suffered.
mike c said on 31/Oct/08
Yaspaa, did you mean this page? Click Here
or this one?
Click Here
He's 6'4" and Clint clearly looked as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. I have the movie and have seen it countless times. Now, to which site are you referring? mike c
Yaspaa, did you mean this page? Click Here
or this one?
Click Here
He's 6'4" and Clint clearly looked as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. I have the movie and have seen it countless times. Now, to which site are you referring? mike c
harry said on 31/Oct/08
Ray: As you know there are quite a lot of these videos on You Tube with Clint seen walking to wards a hidden camera of setand/or walking next to one of the stars of the picture(The Changeling withe Angelina Jolie). It states Angelina Jolie's height at 5' 6.75". If you look at all the recent publicity pictures of Clint and Jolie stood together, you can definitely see that the guy is no where near 6'4 (193cm). That's if Angelina jolie is this height(maybe in heels yeah, but even if she is this reported height. Clint still looks no taller than 6'2". Now 3" is a hell of alot of height to lose don't you think. He always looked 188 -189 max. 20 feet away can create a power ful illusion. Also the people who were surrounding him may have all been average height - including the city cops; not all cops are huge sixfooters - infact, some are well below average height. this is not a new phenommenon - we all know that Mr Eastwood is the star,calls the shots, the head honcho, he will always auditon, select actors who are all either average height or below. If you think about it in all his earlier pictures most of the males co-stars have reached, perhaps 5' 9" - 5'10". This already give the film audience the illusion that the guys stands head and shouders above the rest 6'5" in his shoes. I do agree now that Clint is nearly 80, he may have shrunk by about 5 -6cm in height.
Ray: As you know there are quite a lot of these videos on You Tube with Clint seen walking to wards a hidden camera of setand/or walking next to one of the stars of the picture(The Changeling withe Angelina Jolie). It states Angelina Jolie's height at 5' 6.75". If you look at all the recent publicity pictures of Clint and Jolie stood together, you can definitely see that the guy is no where near 6'4 (193cm). That's if Angelina jolie is this height(maybe in heels yeah, but even if she is this reported height. Clint still looks no taller than 6'2". Now 3" is a hell of alot of height to lose don't you think. He always looked 188 -189 max. 20 feet away can create a power ful illusion. Also the people who were surrounding him may have all been average height - including the city cops; not all cops are huge sixfooters - infact, some are well below average height. this is not a new phenommenon - we all know that Mr Eastwood is the star,calls the shots, the head honcho, he will always auditon, select actors who are all either average height or below. If you think about it in all his earlier pictures most of the males co-stars have reached, perhaps 5' 9" - 5'10". This already give the film audience the illusion that the guys stands head and shouders above the rest 6'5" in his shoes. I do agree now that Clint is nearly 80, he may have shrunk by about 5 -6cm in height.
glenn said on 30/Oct/08
clint was 6-4.i witnessed it.
clint was 6-4.i witnessed it.
Patrick said on 30/Oct/08
Mike: John Russel was well the
Mike: John Russel was well the
harry said on 30/Oct/08
I don't think Clint was ever 6'4". This is something that has been around for over 30 yrs in interviews, biogrpahies etc. I think this image has come from his early days in the Spagetti Westerns - he wore 2inch cowboys boots and a tall hat. He's always been a solid 6'2" throughout his career. Because he has always maintained a ridig fitness programme, his thin rangy figure has made him appear even taller. If you look at him in Play misty for me he never looked 6'4''. that would have made his female co-star at least 6foot tall!
He's always looked a lanky 6'1 1/2" - 2. I'm a legit 6'2" and can appear 6'3 1/2" in 4cm boots to most people.
I don't think Clint was ever 6'4". This is something that has been around for over 30 yrs in interviews, biogrpahies etc. I think this image has come from his early days in the Spagetti Westerns - he wore 2inch cowboys boots and a tall hat. He's always been a solid 6'2" throughout his career. Because he has always maintained a ridig fitness programme, his thin rangy figure has made him appear even taller. If you look at him in Play misty for me he never looked 6'4''. that would have made his female co-star at least 6foot tall!
He's always looked a lanky 6'1 1/2" - 2. I'm a legit 6'2" and can appear 6'3 1/2" in 4cm boots to most people.
Elf said on 29/Oct/08
I had no idea Michael Moriarty was 6'3. I was assuming he was nearer 6 foot or average height. In that case Clint looked 6'4 in 1985. I;ve just seen the scene from Good the Bad where Clint is about to be hanged by Tuco in the hotel bedroom and that has to be the tallest I;ve ever seen him look. He looks massive 6'5 or 6'6 in that scene, similar to Clint Walker. He also looks this height in the scene where he and Tuco get off their horses and walk before the drunk captain/bridge conflict scene. In other scenes and in later films looks 6'4.
I had no idea Michael Moriarty was 6'3. I was assuming he was nearer 6 foot or average height. In that case Clint looked 6'4 in 1985. I;ve just seen the scene from Good the Bad where Clint is about to be hanged by Tuco in the hotel bedroom and that has to be the tallest I;ve ever seen him look. He looks massive 6'5 or 6'6 in that scene, similar to Clint Walker. He also looks this height in the scene where he and Tuco get off their horses and walk before the drunk captain/bridge conflict scene. In other scenes and in later films looks 6'4.
Ray Spakowski said on 28/Oct/08
I stood about 20 feet from him in Savannah while he was directing a scene from the "Garden of Good and Evil" several years ago. He was wearing low-heeled loafers and seemed to tower over everybody near him, including a couple of
city cops. My wife has several tall cousins (guys) in the 6'3" to 6'4" range,
and Clint, at that time, would fit in that category.
I stood about 20 feet from him in Savannah while he was directing a scene from the "Garden of Good and Evil" several years ago. He was wearing low-heeled loafers and seemed to tower over everybody near him, including a couple of
city cops. My wife has several tall cousins (guys) in the 6'3" to 6'4" range,
and Clint, at that time, would fit in that category.
Mike said on 24/Oct/08
...John Russell....the main villain from Pale Rider (Stockburn with his deputies?). Yeah...I noticed, if it's the same guy, he's quite tall in a color John Wayne western. The closest 2 shot of he and Eastwood is during their duel, and it's hard to tell.
...John Russell....the main villain from Pale Rider (Stockburn with his deputies?). Yeah...I noticed, if it's the same guy, he's quite tall in a color John Wayne western. The closest 2 shot of he and Eastwood is during their duel, and it's hard to tell.
Patrick said on 23/Oct/08
I 100% agree, as myself an old biker, Ron when he says on 16/Oct/08
"What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle." Very well nnoticed and posted Ron.
Clint was taller than Michael Moriarty (a great actor too)in Pale Rider. Anyway, Clint, in 1986 was not the guy he used to be any more. He's visibly taller than the yet listed 6'3 John Russell (a true western face if any!)who sure was getting on in years at the time.
I 100% agree, as myself an old biker, Ron when he says on 16/Oct/08
"What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle." Very well nnoticed and posted Ron.
Clint was taller than Michael Moriarty (a great actor too)in Pale Rider. Anyway, Clint, in 1986 was not the guy he used to be any more. He's visibly taller than the yet listed 6'3 John Russell (a true western face if any!)who sure was getting on in years at the time.
Yaspaa said on 22/Oct/08
Mike C,check the Michael Moriarty page.
Mike C,check the Michael Moriarty page.
Mike C said on 20/Oct/08
Michael Moriarty is 6'4"..Clint was as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. Watch the movie on cd and use the pause button. mike c
Michael Moriarty is 6'4"..Clint was as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. Watch the movie on cd and use the pause button. mike c
Hugh said on 20/Oct/08
I don't think CLint is 6ft. More 6ft1-2 nowadays.
I don't think CLint is 6ft. More 6ft1-2 nowadays.
Anonymous said on 17/Oct/08
A three inch loss is really a big difference. I've always thought Clint looked 6 ft 4 in the Dollars films, he really towered above everybody, maybe it was the cowboy boots and the hat and the long coat which gives that impression. However in later films I have been quite surprised to see him against people who are around average height and he never looked the way in comparison a 6ft 4 guy would look. In Pale Rider compare him to his cast members and he is not the towering figure you'd expect from a 6'4 guy. Compared to them he didn't look anything more than 6 ft 2. I'd place him at 6'2 1/2 barefoot peak, 6'4 with boots. These days 6'1 barefoot looks accurate.
A three inch loss is really a big difference. I've always thought Clint looked 6 ft 4 in the Dollars films, he really towered above everybody, maybe it was the cowboy boots and the hat and the long coat which gives that impression. However in later films I have been quite surprised to see him against people who are around average height and he never looked the way in comparison a 6ft 4 guy would look. In Pale Rider compare him to his cast members and he is not the towering figure you'd expect from a 6'4 guy. Compared to them he didn't look anything more than 6 ft 2. I'd place him at 6'2 1/2 barefoot peak, 6'4 with boots. These days 6'1 barefoot looks accurate.
Ron said on 16/Oct/08
What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle.
What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle.
Patrick said on 16/Oct/08
To look tall on screen you need to be very tall or have one of these very special complexions which provide you some grandeur. For me Bob Mitchum, Sean Connery or Peter Graves were so.
Burt Lancaster, taken alone, looked taller than he was.
Some as Peter Lupus, need to be beside other people to look as tall as they really are.
Clint always looked tall until he reached more than 50. He appeared so, on his own as well as surrounded with people almost always smaller than him. I sure think of George Kennedy who never ever looked taller in the two movies they made together.
To look tall on screen you need to be very tall or have one of these very special complexions which provide you some grandeur. For me Bob Mitchum, Sean Connery or Peter Graves were so.
Burt Lancaster, taken alone, looked taller than he was.
Some as Peter Lupus, need to be beside other people to look as tall as they really are.
Clint always looked tall until he reached more than 50. He appeared so, on his own as well as surrounded with people almost always smaller than him. I sure think of George Kennedy who never ever looked taller in the two movies they made together.
Lenad said on 16/Oct/08
Nah James he looked a flat 6'3 to me.
Nah James he looked a flat 6'3 to me.
George H. said on 14/Oct/08
He was quite tall in his younger days, and it wasn't all due to cowboy boots. I don't think he wore special shoes in his Dirty Harry or other seventeis movies, yet he was almost always the tallest guy around. The only one who got close or just a bit over him was George Kennedy. Coming from a family with plenty over 6'3" he always gave me the impression to be in the 6'3", but even more so 6'4" range in his twenties through to late forties.
He was quite tall in his younger days, and it wasn't all due to cowboy boots. I don't think he wore special shoes in his Dirty Harry or other seventeis movies, yet he was almost always the tallest guy around. The only one who got close or just a bit over him was George Kennedy. Coming from a family with plenty over 6'3" he always gave me the impression to be in the 6'3", but even more so 6'4" range in his twenties through to late forties.
Lenad said on 13/Oct/08
His peak should be changed to 6'3.
His peak should be changed to 6'3.
Rick said on 13/Oct/08
Please don't forget about camera angles and some actors when being filmed stand on uneven ground sometimes on 6" stages or platforms that's built along an entire walkway of a scene, hidden from view ofcourse. An example of this is for an off topic actor Richard Gere.
Please don't forget about camera angles and some actors when being filmed stand on uneven ground sometimes on 6" stages or platforms that's built along an entire walkway of a scene, hidden from view ofcourse. An example of this is for an off topic actor Richard Gere.
Roger said on 12/Oct/08
Did Clint undergo any form of surgery, like hip replacement?
Because this shrinkage is unreal. He is equal to Arnold today and almost towered him 20 years ago.
Did Clint undergo any form of surgery, like hip replacement?
Because this shrinkage is unreal. He is equal to Arnold today and almost towered him 20 years ago.
Hugh said on 10/Oct/08
6ft4 I can buy as his peak height. I looked gigantic in those western films. But I think 6ft1 flat does seem I little low. Maybe 186-187cm. In Million Dollar Baby he looked maybe 1 inch shorter than Morgan Freeman.
6ft4 I can buy as his peak height. I looked gigantic in those western films. But I think 6ft1 flat does seem I little low. Maybe 186-187cm. In Million Dollar Baby he looked maybe 1 inch shorter than Morgan Freeman.
Patrick said on 8/Oct/08
Mike,6 inches are after all, nothing more than half a head or a bit more for a man as Hingle who has a massive one but not long.
In 1977
Mike,6 inches are after all, nothing more than half a head or a bit more for a man as Hingle who has a massive one but not long.
In 1977
Mike said on 5/Oct/08
...Just watched Sudden Impact, again. Clint is taller than Pat Hingle, but not by a huge, huge ammount. I never thought of Hingle as tall. If he was(is), say 5'10, a 6'4 Eastwood would be a full 6 inches taller. So, either Hingle is/was taller than you think, or Eastwood was never really 6'4.
...Just watched Sudden Impact, again. Clint is taller than Pat Hingle, but not by a huge, huge ammount. I never thought of Hingle as tall. If he was(is), say 5'10, a 6'4 Eastwood would be a full 6 inches taller. So, either Hingle is/was taller than you think, or Eastwood was never really 6'4.
KindaAnonymousDuctchfella said on 5/Oct/08
In the Daily Show with Jon Stewart he still looks like about 4.5 to 5 inches taller than 1m70 Stewart (You can probably still watch it on youtube daily show from the second of October). Which is not very difficult I admit, but then he should be about 5.11.75/1m82, not considering that Stewart plausibly is wearing +1inch lifts, which puts Eastwood Eastwood at 6foot to 6foot1 (183-185). I do though have the idea that the man was very close to 6foot4 at his peak, especially when you see him walking in the famous youvegottoaskyourselfaquestion/robberyscene in the first Dirty Harry film, he seems 6foot4.75 or something in shoes. 6 ft 5 in boots in Dollarstrilogy. He is as far as I know only really outheighted, if that is a correct Anglosaxon word, by Fred D. Thompson (about 6ft5) in in the line of fire which is a 1993 or something movie, and later and irrelevant, by lots of people in Million Dollar Baby which was made in 2006.
In the Daily Show with Jon Stewart he still looks like about 4.5 to 5 inches taller than 1m70 Stewart (You can probably still watch it on youtube daily show from the second of October). Which is not very difficult I admit, but then he should be about 5.11.75/1m82, not considering that Stewart plausibly is wearing +1inch lifts, which puts Eastwood Eastwood at 6foot to 6foot1 (183-185). I do though have the idea that the man was very close to 6foot4 at his peak, especially when you see him walking in the famous youvegottoaskyourselfaquestion/robberyscene in the first Dirty Harry film, he seems 6foot4.75 or something in shoes. 6 ft 5 in boots in Dollarstrilogy. He is as far as I know only really outheighted, if that is a correct Anglosaxon word, by Fred D. Thompson (about 6ft5) in in the line of fire which is a 1993 or something movie, and later and irrelevant, by lots of people in Million Dollar Baby which was made in 2006.
Mister Lennon said on 3/Oct/08
The movie with Liam Neeson and Clint Eastwood was the black list and it was made in 1990. I think that Clint never was a full 6'4, but maybe closer. I have always saw him as a solid 6'3 guy, maybe close to 6'4 at peak but not a real 6'4.
Today, maybe he is in the 6'1 range or even less.
The movie with Liam Neeson and Clint Eastwood was the black list and it was made in 1990. I think that Clint never was a full 6'4, but maybe closer. I have always saw him as a solid 6'3 guy, maybe close to 6'4 at peak but not a real 6'4.
Today, maybe he is in the 6'1 range or even less.
Hugh said on 3/Oct/08
I'm suprised by this though. Clint must have had some major injuries over the course of ten years to effect his height by that much.
I'm suprised by this though. Clint must have had some major injuries over the course of ten years to effect his height by that much.
Lenad said on 2/Oct/08
He did look around 6'3 in his youth.
He did look around 6'3 in his youth.
Yaspaa said on 2/Oct/08
Clint was shorter than Liam so Liam must be taller than 6'4,riiiight!
Clint was shorter than Liam so Liam must be taller than 6'4,riiiight!
Yaspaa said on 1/Oct/08
Man in lifts could,Van Cleef was always in boots aswell and he didn't look 6'2 next to James Mason. I think he was over 6'2 mind maybe barefoot 6'3 prime for Clint. Donald Sutherland looks under 6'1 next to Kiefer or has he also lost a great deal of height.
Man in lifts could,Van Cleef was always in boots aswell and he didn't look 6'2 next to James Mason. I think he was over 6'2 mind maybe barefoot 6'3 prime for Clint. Donald Sutherland looks under 6'1 next to Kiefer or has he also lost a great deal of height.
adam said on 1/Oct/08
Van Cleef is over 6-1, Sutherland definitely a very close (if not over!) 6-4 prime. Why do you downgrade everyone?
Like James said: Aging Clint was taller than Morgan Freeman who sure as hell wasn`t under 6-2
Van Cleef is over 6-1, Sutherland definitely a very close (if not over!) 6-4 prime. Why do you downgrade everyone?
Like James said: Aging Clint was taller than Morgan Freeman who sure as hell wasn`t under 6-2
Yaspaa said on 30/Sep/08
Lee Van Cleef - barely 6'1........Don Sutherland - strong 6'2 (prime). I also got measured at school and it was in the shoes I was wearing as was Clint's school measurement no doubt.
I bet newspapers at the time were all quoting Clint at 6'4 and that piece of unfounded information permeated into everyone's brains which in turn permeated into their kids brains etc. Why would he lie? Why does everone lie? ,to make themselves seem better than they are,they are movie stars after all. Exaggerated resume's stay with them. Actors heights can be manipulated easily on screen, (Iron Man springs to mind.) Larry Hankin from Escape From Alcatraz looks like the 6'4 guy he is listed at and was taller than Clint in that movie. 5'10 was also Bob Hope's listed height i.e in footwear. Smell the roses people.
Lee Van Cleef - barely 6'1........Don Sutherland - strong 6'2 (prime). I also got measured at school and it was in the shoes I was wearing as was Clint's school measurement no doubt.
I bet newspapers at the time were all quoting Clint at 6'4 and that piece of unfounded information permeated into everyone's brains which in turn permeated into their kids brains etc. Why would he lie? Why does everone lie? ,to make themselves seem better than they are,they are movie stars after all. Exaggerated resume's stay with them. Actors heights can be manipulated easily on screen, (Iron Man springs to mind.) Larry Hankin from Escape From Alcatraz looks like the 6'4 guy he is listed at and was taller than Clint in that movie. 5'10 was also Bob Hope's listed height i.e in footwear. Smell the roses people.
Mister Lennon said on 30/Sep/08
I have always seen him as a 6'2 and a half or a 6'3 guy at peak. Now probably 6'1 or 6'1 and a half. Liam Neeson looks an strong 6'3 or 6'4 and was clearly taller than clint in the black list.
I have always seen him as a 6'2 and a half or a 6'3 guy at peak. Now probably 6'1 or 6'1 and a half. Liam Neeson looks an strong 6'3 or 6'4 and was clearly taller than clint in the black list.
adam said on 30/Sep/08
Clint had about 2 inches on the 6-2 Lee Van Cleef. Clint was also about the same height as Donald Sutherland who`s 6-4 as well. In Unforgiven Clint looks taller than Gene Hackman who`s not under 6-2. I havent seen all Dirty Harry movies but in the first one he looks taller than his partner in that movie. Cant remember the actors name but he`s 6-3 if I remember correctly.
And yes, it is possible to lose as much as 4 inches in height. It happens extremely rarely but Clint has had bad back since he was 16 years old and so on... Believe me, losing 4 inches is possible. The taller you are, the more you can lose.
Remember Bob Hope. He was 5-10 and dropped down to about 5-6. He wasn`t tall and he wasn
Clint had about 2 inches on the 6-2 Lee Van Cleef. Clint was also about the same height as Donald Sutherland who`s 6-4 as well. In Unforgiven Clint looks taller than Gene Hackman who`s not under 6-2. I havent seen all Dirty Harry movies but in the first one he looks taller than his partner in that movie. Cant remember the actors name but he`s 6-3 if I remember correctly.
And yes, it is possible to lose as much as 4 inches in height. It happens extremely rarely but Clint has had bad back since he was 16 years old and so on... Believe me, losing 4 inches is possible. The taller you are, the more you can lose.
Remember Bob Hope. He was 5-10 and dropped down to about 5-6. He wasn`t tall and he wasn
Parker said on 30/Sep/08
In the Magnum Force scene with Tim Matheson,Robert Urich and David Soul Clint is clearly taller than all 3. I've seen Urich quoted at 6'2 on several sites, also Tim Matheson. I think you need more than an inch to look clearly taller. I do think he was 6'4 prime. 6/6'1 now.
In the Magnum Force scene with Tim Matheson,Robert Urich and David Soul Clint is clearly taller than all 3. I've seen Urich quoted at 6'2 on several sites, also Tim Matheson. I think you need more than an inch to look clearly taller. I do think he was 6'4 prime. 6/6'1 now.
Parker said on 30/Sep/08
Sorry James, can't remember the source. It was a newspaper interview. Quite some years back now.
Sorry James, can't remember the source. It was a newspaper interview. Quite some years back now.
David said on 29/Sep/08
I could see 6'3 for Eastwood, definitely no shorter though. He looks 6'3 and 6'4 both in the Dirty Harry movies. In the Dead Pool he definitely looks less than Liam Neeson, and its unlikely he had lost much height at this point. If he was 6'4 it was probably a morning height, and not a strong 6'4. Even though 6'3 is plenty tall, being 6'4 sounds better, its about as tall as one can get without begginning to sound freakish.
I could see 6'3 for Eastwood, definitely no shorter though. He looks 6'3 and 6'4 both in the Dirty Harry movies. In the Dead Pool he definitely looks less than Liam Neeson, and its unlikely he had lost much height at this point. If he was 6'4 it was probably a morning height, and not a strong 6'4. Even though 6'3 is plenty tall, being 6'4 sounds better, its about as tall as one can get without begginning to sound freakish.
Height Tracker said on 29/Sep/08
Ed T. you should take into account that in that scene Matheson is wearing boots while Clint is wearing pretty flat shoes. Thus, the height discrepancy is somewhat smaller than it otherwise would be.
Ed T. you should take into account that in that scene Matheson is wearing boots while Clint is wearing pretty flat shoes. Thus, the height discrepancy is somewhat smaller than it otherwise would be.
Parker said on 29/Sep/08
I remember Clint doing an interview some years back. He said he was 6'4 at 16, and there was only one guy taller in his school year at 6'5. Why would he say that if it wasn,t true?
I remember Clint doing an interview some years back. He said he was 6'4 at 16, and there was only one guy taller in his school year at 6'5. Why would he say that if it wasn,t true?
Mike said on 28/Sep/08
...can't say I agree a 6'4 Eastwood could now be 6 even. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it.
...can't say I agree a 6'4 Eastwood could now be 6 even. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it.
Ed T. said on 27/Sep/08
Adam, as I'm writing this, "Magnum Force" is on televison. There is a scene at the shooting range where Eastwood is standing next to Tim Matheson ( playing one of the 4 Rogue Cops). In that scene, although Clint is taller than Matheson, I don't think he is by two inches. I think the absolute maximum height for Matheson would be 6'2" ( I remember thinking he was more like 6'1" in Animal House). If Matheson was 6'2", I could see Clint being less than a full 6'4". Still very tall even if 6'3.5". Really does it matter if Eastwood was 6'3.5" or 6'4"? No. But I do think there is some evidence that says that maybe Clint was not a definite 6'4".
Adam, as I'm writing this, "Magnum Force" is on televison. There is a scene at the shooting range where Eastwood is standing next to Tim Matheson ( playing one of the 4 Rogue Cops). In that scene, although Clint is taller than Matheson, I don't think he is by two inches. I think the absolute maximum height for Matheson would be 6'2" ( I remember thinking he was more like 6'1" in Animal House). If Matheson was 6'2", I could see Clint being less than a full 6'4". Still very tall even if 6'3.5". Really does it matter if Eastwood was 6'3.5" or 6'4"? No. But I do think there is some evidence that says that maybe Clint was not a definite 6'4".
Da Man said on 27/Sep/08
adam says on 25/Sep/08
"But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak."
Yet he never looked it. This guy did not lose 3 inches.
adam says on 25/Sep/08
"But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak."
Yet he never looked it. This guy did not lose 3 inches.
adam said on 25/Sep/08
6-4 prime but has lost several inches. Just saw a picture and he was towered by Tim Robbins. The picture is from 2005 and in that pic he looked like solid 4 inches shorter than Tim. So he`s not 6-1 or over anymore, that`s obvious... I`d say barely an even six feet these days, maybe even less. But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak.
6-4 prime but has lost several inches. Just saw a picture and he was towered by Tim Robbins. The picture is from 2005 and in that pic he looked like solid 4 inches shorter than Tim. So he`s not 6-1 or over anymore, that`s obvious... I`d say barely an even six feet these days, maybe even less. But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak.
adam said on 23/Sep/08
Yep, Clint isn
Yep, Clint isn
mike c said on 22/Sep/08
adam, I've posted the fact that my grandfather (died at 102 years of age) was 6' in his youth.....when I last saw him in person at 92, he as my height (5'6") and shrinking. He had curvature of the spine and he always leaned forward..so, Clint's loss is not unnatural..on the contrary, many people lose height...it's just that some lose more than others. Glad you're in the ballpark with Wayne and Eastwood. mike c
adam, I've posted the fact that my grandfather (died at 102 years of age) was 6' in his youth.....when I last saw him in person at 92, he as my height (5'6") and shrinking. He had curvature of the spine and he always leaned forward..so, Clint's loss is not unnatural..on the contrary, many people lose height...it's just that some lose more than others. Glad you're in the ballpark with Wayne and Eastwood. mike c
Hugh said on 21/Sep/08
Clint was 6ft4 at his peak and his now 6ft1-6ft2.
Clint was 6ft4 at his peak and his now 6ft1-6ft2.
adam said on 19/Sep/08
He was 6-4 peak. Nowadays he is most likely under 6-1. He is old and has back problems. It`s BS claiming that "you cant lost more than 2,567 inches! It
He was 6-4 peak. Nowadays he is most likely under 6-1. He is old and has back problems. It`s BS claiming that "you cant lost more than 2,567 inches! It
mike c said on 18/Sep/08
Yes, straighten Gavins out and they would be identical in height. Just look at the chin line and raise it up a hair for Gavins..No way would he be 1" taller than Clint. Great photo, Frank 2. Mike C
Yes, straighten Gavins out and they would be identical in height. Just look at the chin line and raise it up a hair for Gavins..No way would he be 1" taller than Clint. Great photo, Frank 2. Mike C
Hugh said on 16/Sep/08
I agree with a legit 6ft4 at his peak. I find it hard to beleive he's lost 3 inches though. I think he could be scrapping 6ft2 now.
I agree with a legit 6ft4 at his peak. I find it hard to beleive he's lost 3 inches though. I think he could be scrapping 6ft2 now.
adam said on 15/Sep/08
Gavin would be a little taller yes, but Gavin might also be more than 6-4. I do believe Clint was a solid 6-4 prime.
Gavin would be a little taller yes, but Gavin might also be more than 6-4. I do believe Clint was a solid 6-4 prime.
Tony G. said on 14/Sep/08
Yes, Frank2, they look almost exactly the same height.
Yes, Frank2, they look almost exactly the same height.
Ed T. said on 14/Sep/08
Frank,
Gavin appears to be leaning in. If he is not leaning I would estimate Gavin has at least a half inch on Eastwood.
Frank,
Gavin appears to be leaning in. If he is not leaning I would estimate Gavin has at least a half inch on Eastwood.
Frank2 said on 13/Sep/08
Here's 6'4" John Gavin( who I've met and believe me, he's at least that tall!) with Eastwood and actress/TV hostess Susan Stafford:
Click Here
Eastwood looks to be about the same height as Gavin.
Here's 6'4" John Gavin( who I've met and believe me, he's at least that tall!) with Eastwood and actress/TV hostess Susan Stafford:
Click Here
Eastwood looks to be about the same height as Gavin.
Hugh said on 13/Sep/08
He was a solid 6ft4 at his peak. I really do not know how he has lost so much height. I think 6ft1.5-6ft2 is his height nowadays.
He was a solid 6ft4 at his peak. I really do not know how he has lost so much height. I think 6ft1.5-6ft2 is his height nowadays.
Brad said on 5/Sep/08
6' 4" for a few decades. Put the boots on and you get a real deal 6' 6", now add the hat and he looks even taller. I wonder who he votes for president?
6' 4" for a few decades. Put the boots on and you get a real deal 6' 6", now add the hat and he looks even taller. I wonder who he votes for president?
adam said on 4/Sep/08
James, and now he`s fat? Nope. Eastwood has always been slender. Thin is a wrong word. He`s always been a tall, slender and definitely a muscular man. Jimmy Stewart was thin: He didn
James, and now he`s fat? Nope. Eastwood has always been slender. Thin is a wrong word. He`s always been a tall, slender and definitely a muscular man. Jimmy Stewart was thin: He didn
Pauster said on 2/Sep/08
I just got the Rawhide DVD.... I totally believe 6'4". He is the tallest one on the show, buy at least 3". That other guy must have a bad memory. "Get'em up, move'em out!"
I just got the Rawhide DVD.... I totally believe 6'4". He is the tallest one on the show, buy at least 3". That other guy must have a bad memory. "Get'em up, move'em out!"
Frank2 said on 1/Sep/08
Yes, I did. Nice man. But a mountain! At least 6'4".
Yes, I did. Nice man. But a mountain! At least 6'4".
Danimal said on 31/Aug/08
adam says on 31/Aug/08
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
I am not Frank2, but George was a legit 6'4" man, seeing he had at least 2-3" on O.J. Simpson in the Naked Gun movies and this was him as an old man at this point.
adam says on 31/Aug/08
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
I am not Frank2, but George was a legit 6'4" man, seeing he had at least 2-3" on O.J. Simpson in the Naked Gun movies and this was him as an old man at this point.
adam said on 31/Aug/08
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
adam said on 30/Aug/08
JW, I dont believe either that John Wayne was 6-4. But come on buddy: Arnold isn`t 5-10. He was a close 6-2 peak, and still six feet. Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime... and George Kennedy under 6-4! Jesus... If anything, the man was closer to 6-5.
JW, I dont believe either that John Wayne was 6-4. But come on buddy: Arnold isn`t 5-10. He was a close 6-2 peak, and still six feet. Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime... and George Kennedy under 6-4! Jesus... If anything, the man was closer to 6-5.
JW said on 29/Aug/08
Mike--The picture proves nothing. Clint Eastwood is closer to the camera so he appears taller. The surface they are on is not visible and neither are their shoes. Arnie is only 5'10" or 5'11" anyway, so Eastwood would definitely appear taller at 6'1".
For those who insist that Clint Eastwood was 6'4" consider that with cowboy boots he would be 6'6". If he wore a hat, that would add another 3 or 4 inches making his total length about 6'9" or 6'10". He would not be able to walk through a standard sized door. Eastwood never appeared that tall.
I have already pointed out that Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. In the photo I mentioned, they are right together and their shoulders are even. Clint is wearing cowboy boots and Ebsen is wearing shoes. Fess Parker has on moccasin boots which probably have almost no heel and he still towers over both of them. There is no way that a person 6'4" would look so small next to a person who is 6'5" as Fess Parker is.
People seem amazed about Clint Eastwood's current height or lack of it. The truth is he never was that tall to begin with. Some of the other actors who were billed as being 6'4" but were actually less include John Wayne, George Kennedy, Dan Blocker, Denny Miller, and Max Baer, Jr.
Mike--The picture proves nothing. Clint Eastwood is closer to the camera so he appears taller. The surface they are on is not visible and neither are their shoes. Arnie is only 5'10" or 5'11" anyway, so Eastwood would definitely appear taller at 6'1".
For those who insist that Clint Eastwood was 6'4" consider that with cowboy boots he would be 6'6". If he wore a hat, that would add another 3 or 4 inches making his total length about 6'9" or 6'10". He would not be able to walk through a standard sized door. Eastwood never appeared that tall.
I have already pointed out that Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. In the photo I mentioned, they are right together and their shoulders are even. Clint is wearing cowboy boots and Ebsen is wearing shoes. Fess Parker has on moccasin boots which probably have almost no heel and he still towers over both of them. There is no way that a person 6'4" would look so small next to a person who is 6'5" as Fess Parker is.
People seem amazed about Clint Eastwood's current height or lack of it. The truth is he never was that tall to begin with. Some of the other actors who were billed as being 6'4" but were actually less include John Wayne, George Kennedy, Dan Blocker, Denny Miller, and Max Baer, Jr.
Hugh said on 28/Aug/08
Clint was 6ft4 up till about 20 years ago. He shrunk gradually from there. Today he's 187-188cm.
Clint was 6ft4 up till about 20 years ago. He shrunk gradually from there. Today he's 187-188cm.
Mike said on 27/Aug/08
With regards to the Dead Pool with Neeson, there are scenes where he is standing next to Neeson on level ground (such as the warehouse scene, about 20 minutes or so in) & he is exactly the same height. Yet, when walking next to Neeson, Clint looks noticeably shorter. I`ve seen this in several of his films & his posture is dreadful when walking. I remember some back doctor writing about it on here a while back. Similar scenes are in Eiger Sanction, where walking next to 6'4" George Kennedy he is slouching badly and thus shorter, but standing next to him he is the same height. Unless Kennedy, Neeson & lots of other actors are all lying about being 6'4" or 6'3" (highly unlikely), then Eastwood is a legit 6'4".
With regards to the Dead Pool with Neeson, there are scenes where he is standing next to Neeson on level ground (such as the warehouse scene, about 20 minutes or so in) & he is exactly the same height. Yet, when walking next to Neeson, Clint looks noticeably shorter. I`ve seen this in several of his films & his posture is dreadful when walking. I remember some back doctor writing about it on here a while back. Similar scenes are in Eiger Sanction, where walking next to 6'4" George Kennedy he is slouching badly and thus shorter, but standing next to him he is the same height. Unless Kennedy, Neeson & lots of other actors are all lying about being 6'4" or 6'3" (highly unlikely), then Eastwood is a legit 6'4".
adam said on 27/Aug/08
Neeson could be taller than 6-4. I`d say a solid 6-4
Neeson could be taller than 6-4. I`d say a solid 6-4
Bob H. said on 26/Aug/08
On the TV series Rawhide, Eric Flemming always appeared taller than Rowdy/Clint.
Flemming's bio lists him as having been 6'4". I too believe Clint was close but not 6'4".
On the TV series Rawhide, Eric Flemming always appeared taller than Rowdy/Clint.
Flemming's bio lists him as having been 6'4". I too believe Clint was close but not 6'4".
adam said on 26/Aug/08
Yes that photo isnt very reliable - Clint looks like 5 inches taller which isnt the case. But I sure believe that he was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts.
Yes that photo isnt very reliable - Clint looks like 5 inches taller which isnt the case. But I sure believe that he was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts.
Mike said on 25/Aug/08
Click on this link & see the height difference between Clint & Arnie. This looks like it is from the 70's. Tell me, JW, that Clint is not 6'4". Click Here
Click on this link & see the height difference between Clint & Arnie. This looks like it is from the 70's. Tell me, JW, that Clint is not 6'4". Click Here
JW said on 23/Aug/08
Frank2--The video proves that Buddy Ebsen was taller than Dean Martin but it doesn't prove that he was 6'3". I am not sold on Dean Martin being 5'10". He looked small on the Sons of Katie Elder and Rio Bravo. Max Baer, Jr. claims to be 6'4" but realistically he could not have been over 6'3". He was about an inch shorter than Tom Lester (6'4"). On the movie The Birdmen, Baer was about 3 inches shorter than Chuck Connors. On the Beverly Hillbillies, he was also shorter than Robert Easton (height unknown). The point is that since Max Baer, Jr. was about 2 inches taller than Buddy Ebsen on the Beverly Hillbillies, Ebsen could only have been about 6'1".
On one episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, Buddy Ebsen looks about 4 inches shorter than Robert Foulk (6'5"). On this episode, it has nothing to do with camera angle or uneven ground. Foulk may have only been 6'4" at the time because he appeared to be the same size as Tom Lester when they appeared together on Green Acres. Foulk was huge but he was not as tall as Chuck Connors or James Arness. Another actor who made Buddy Ebsen look small was Peter Whitney (height unknown).
On the first season of Barnaby Jones, the character that Buddy Ebsen portrayed was described as being 73 inches tall. Although script heights are seldom accurate, it seems unlikely that the Barnaby Jones character would be 6'1" unless there was some basis for it.
I contend that Clint Eastwood's alleged height of 6'4" is as bogus as Dean Martin being 5'10 and Buddy Ebsen being 6'3". Until someone can produce a picture of Eastwood standing next to a genuinely tall actor (not Lee Marvin), I am not convinced.
Frank2--The video proves that Buddy Ebsen was taller than Dean Martin but it doesn't prove that he was 6'3". I am not sold on Dean Martin being 5'10". He looked small on the Sons of Katie Elder and Rio Bravo. Max Baer, Jr. claims to be 6'4" but realistically he could not have been over 6'3". He was about an inch shorter than Tom Lester (6'4"). On the movie The Birdmen, Baer was about 3 inches shorter than Chuck Connors. On the Beverly Hillbillies, he was also shorter than Robert Easton (height unknown). The point is that since Max Baer, Jr. was about 2 inches taller than Buddy Ebsen on the Beverly Hillbillies, Ebsen could only have been about 6'1".
On one episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, Buddy Ebsen looks about 4 inches shorter than Robert Foulk (6'5"). On this episode, it has nothing to do with camera angle or uneven ground. Foulk may have only been 6'4" at the time because he appeared to be the same size as Tom Lester when they appeared together on Green Acres. Foulk was huge but he was not as tall as Chuck Connors or James Arness. Another actor who made Buddy Ebsen look small was Peter Whitney (height unknown).
On the first season of Barnaby Jones, the character that Buddy Ebsen portrayed was described as being 73 inches tall. Although script heights are seldom accurate, it seems unlikely that the Barnaby Jones character would be 6'1" unless there was some basis for it.
I contend that Clint Eastwood's alleged height of 6'4" is as bogus as Dean Martin being 5'10 and Buddy Ebsen being 6'3". Until someone can produce a picture of Eastwood standing next to a genuinely tall actor (not Lee Marvin), I am not convinced.
MHouillon said on 19/Aug/08
I see Eastwood as a 192cm (6'3.5) in his peak and nowadays as a 186cm (6'1.5).
Due to age and back problems has lost 6cm! (2.25 inches.)
I see Eastwood as a 192cm (6'3.5) in his peak and nowadays as a 186cm (6'1.5).
Due to age and back problems has lost 6cm! (2.25 inches.)
Yaspaa said on 17/Aug/08
6'4.5.......... his heels were not that big!
6'4.5.......... his heels were not that big!
Frank2 said on 17/Aug/08
No, the case ain't closed since Wayne was 6'4". Met him, shook his hand and saw him several times on the Uni lot. I saw him wearing street shoes (no lifts) and he towered over me and just about everyone else.
No, the case ain't closed since Wayne was 6'4". Met him, shook his hand and saw him several times on the Uni lot. I saw him wearing street shoes (no lifts) and he towered over me and just about everyone else.
adam said on 17/Aug/08
Napier was 6-6 to 6-7.
Arness was 6-7.
Eastwood was 6-4 to 6-4
Napier was 6-6 to 6-7.
Arness was 6-7.
Eastwood was 6-4 to 6-4
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.