umad80 says on 13/Feb/10
For the record, when I stated this, Tom was listed at 5'9" with the picture. It had since been changed. Incidentally this came after HBP photocall. Why? Who knows. But it's the reason why I rarely come here any more. I can't debate height without it suddenly changing... it takes all the fun out of it. Of course, out of you, me, and Rob, I'm the only one who has stood right in front of Rupert. I'll stand by my claim that if Rupert is not 5'9" he is no shorter than 5'8.75", an inch taller than listed. And that is all I will say.

CP says on 11/Feb/10
Here are pics of Rupert looking several inches shorter than Tom and barely taller than Dan that are also from the HBP photocall. It all depends on the pics you select. Again, no taller than 5'8".

Click Here

Click Here

CP says on 10/Feb/10
Umad80: Give up on this whole Rupert is 5'9" thing. This site has him correct. You stated that "But Tom is 5'9", proven by this site with a picture." Wrong. This site states he is 5'8.5" and looking at the pic I doubt he is even that. Even if Rupert was a tall as Tom, he would not be 5'9". You have also shown several pics in which Rupert looks the same height as Tom or 4 inches taller than Emma and Dan. But because of a variety of factors such as camera angle, shoe advantage and ground advantage it isn’t exactly difficult to selectively choose pics that give Rupert an extra inch. Watching the movies I see many instances where Rupert looks near 2 inches shorter than Tom. He is 5'8" at most.

Hm says on 28/Jan/10
i think he is 5'7.. he is noticeably taller than Hermione and Harry but not that much- i think 5'10 is much too high an estimate for Rupert

G.G says on 21/Jan/10
John: Tom is widely argued as being 5'4.5 in height. So i think Rupert is solid on this height. 5'7.75 for Rupert Grint.

John says on 20/Jan/10
In that picture with Tom and daniel, if daniel is 5"5 the he is 5"8

maximus meridius says on 1/Jan/10
he and daniel radcliffe are are not what you call a late growers rupert grint was already done growing by the time he was 20 daniel radcliffe was already done growing by the time he was 19 daniel radcliffe and rupert grint started growing at 12 and 13 most of the harry potter cast were done growing by the late 2000s matthew lewis might still be growing he didn't start growing until 2004 the actor who plays dean thomas i think he is still growing he didn't start growing until 2005

G.G says on 22/Dec/09
Umad80, your wrong, Dress shoes give a 0.25 - 0.5 inch advantage over chucks. I know very well because my sister works in HUGO BOSS central retailer in Sydney Centrepoint Westfield. And Rupert in that video was 18 and a half years old and i highly doubt he even grew one cm after that. Nearly all men stop growing at 17.

"during the HBP photocall you can clearly see that Tom and Rupert are definitely the same height!", are you blind, in the pictures Rupert is standing really straight whilst Tom has one of his legs bend with quite loose posture and Rupert Grint is same height at Tom. But in the third picture, Rupert is standing straight and Tom is standing with a normal posture and if you look closely, 5'8.5" Tom Felton has a 0.5 inch over Rupert Grint, Tom's flat hair is higher than Rupert's volumized hair, therefore Tom has to have 0.5 - 0.75 inch over Rupert.

Overall, i think Rupert is 5'7.5 - 5'8. I think ROB HAS GOT THIS HEIGHT SPOT ON LIKE A JIFFY.

umad80 says on 21/Dec/09
If I had to decide, I'd say Rupert is an inch taller than his listing here. If he has a slight advantage over 5'9" Tom in those photos (as I so graciously pointed out by saying "he's standing really tall here") then he's probably just a tad shorter or exactly the same height. It's pretty obvious from the H/W/F ceremony that Rupert had a 4" advantage over Dan and Emma when they were bare foot. And now with wearing shoes that doesn't take away from his height for a change, it's pretty obvious that the 4" wasn't a "that point in time" moment.

Jim says on 20/Dec/09
Well looking at the pics from Umad80, I'd say, Rupert looks 5'9. He looks it next to Dan.

Dress shoes can give a slight advantage over chucks, though it really isn't that major.

Jake, no actually, I was told from my doctor at age 18 that many grow into their 20's. Not much, but very well can. Sorry to say, YOU ARE WRONG deal with it.

G.G says on 15/Dec/09
Umad80, your wrong, Dress shoes give a 0.25 - 0.5 inch advantage over chucks. I know very well because my sister works in HUGO BOSS central retailer in Sydney Centrepoint Westfield. And Rupert in that video was 18 and a half years old and i highly doubt he even grew one cm after that. Nearly all men stop growing at 17.

"during the HBP photocall you can clearly see that Tom and Rupert are definitely the same height!", are you blind, in the pictures Rupert is standing really straight whilst Tom has one of his legs bend with quite loose posture and Rupert Grint is same height at Tom. But in the third picture, Rupert and Tom are both standin straight and if you look closely, Tom Felton has a 0.5 inch over Rupert Grint, Tom's flat hair is higher than Rupert's volumized hair, therefore Tom has to have 0.5 - 0.75 inch over Rupert.

Overall, i think Rupert is 5'7.5 - 5'8. I think Rob has got his height spot on like a jivvy.

umad80 says on 13/Dec/09
G.G, that is an old video (meaning Rupert could have grown) and you don't take in account that Rupert is wearing chucks vs. William Moseley wearing dress shoes (giving him an extra inch in height over Rupert!)

Jane, you'd be absolutely right if Dan and Emma are both 5'4". But Tom is 5'9", proven by this site with a picture, and during the HBP photocall you can clearly see that Tom and Rupert are definitely the same height! Click Here Click Here (Rupert seems to be standing really straight in these.) Click Here - and there are others, but it's more of the same of the first two pics, or he looks really short because he's leaning or looks even taller because the other two have extremely laid back posture.

G.G says on 12/Dec/09
This video proves that rupert is 5'7.5

Click Here

It clearly shows that Rupert Grint is at 2-2.5 inches shorter than William Moseley, whose height is 5'9.5.

Therefore Rupert Grint has to be 5'7.5 (171.5cm).

Jane says on 8/Dec/09
I think the site is spot on - 5'7.75", maybe 5'8" when he wakes up, but seriously, no more than that. He seems relatively tall next to his short co-stars (Daniel and Emma are both in the 5'4" region; I think the both of them either haven't measured themselves properly or are adding on - we all do it, particularly guys), but that doesn't make him a giant. Taking into account his comfortable posture, I would say a solid 5'8", but no more.

Jake says on 3/Dec/09
No, James that isn't accurate. Most men do not continue to grow until 22/23. Are you serious? Most men get the majority of their height at 16/17, and then stop at 18 typically. They can grow until 22/23, but that's very rare. I stopped growing at the beginning of my junior year in high school, and I noticed all of my male friends stop growing at around this time too. Nik is correct.

James says on 16/Nov/09
Nik, men usually stop growing at around 22/23. Sometimes later. From what it appears, I think Rupert is 5'9. Man sites(including his myspace) claim 5'10. Hmmm...I say 5'9 more so. He is certainly noticably taller than Dan who is about 5'6.

tree says on 16/Oct/09
I'd say 5'8.5 sounds about right for Rupe. He's certainly quite a bit stockier than most of his costars, but remember that almost all the actors in HP movies are TINY. Hagrid's actor isn't an especially giant man but looks massive in the movies. And even Slughorn is quite a bit bigger than almost all the students. Rupe is much larger than Dan but probably only by 2-3 inches.

Nik says on 10/Oct/09
And there is absolutely no chance that Dan is 5'7 or 5'8. He is 5'5 if anything. Rupert is not 5'10 either. He's probably 5'8.5 based on his pics with Dan or the Phelps or other actors

Nik says on 10/Oct/09
All the Harry Potter kids are in their late teens or early 20s now. Guys CAN grow until 21 but usually don't. They are usually done about 18. And girls CAN grow until 18 but usually don't. They are usually done about 14 or so. Bonnie is probably about the same size now as she was in that picture. At 16 or 17 she probably didn't grow too much. The kids are all about the same size they were in OOTP.

James S says on 4/Oct/09
I saw the movie again, great film by the way.

Looking at them, Dan looks 5'7-5'8. And Rupert still is noticeably taller, he needs to get upgraded. He is most definitely 5'10. He did grow, that is a fact, noticeably. And he is 21, so he most likely isn't all the way done quite yet.

umad80 says on 2/Oct/09
I think it's so obvious that Rupert is 5'8.5" at the very least (or okay, I'll give "close to it" too) after seeing him next to Tom (who got listed as 5'8.5" here) for HBP promotion. It's ridiculous he hasn't been upgraded.

trace says on 1/Oct/09
k4556
although i do agree that rupert does need an upgrade to about 5"8.5, that photo can't be counted as credible evidence
firstly Bonnie was probably not the height she is now when it was taken, she was about 16/17 so still growing
and the camera angle really is in rupert's favour, it's much closer to him so would show him to appear taller than he is

Denim says on 1/Oct/09
Rupert literally towers over Emma and Daniel by 3.5 inches in the latest sequel, time for an upgrade Rob to 5'8.5, 174 cm is legit, he could reach 175 i bet, he clearly grew more than an inch...

k4556 says on 26/Sep/09
He really has to be about 5"8.5 to 5"9, because bonnie wright really really looks about 5"6, and in this picture : Click Here
it might just be the angle the picture is shot, but he looks a good bit taller, so really, even though Bonnie is a good height for a girl, he still has got to be 3 inches taller. Sometimes he doesn't look it but in pics like these I think it's evident.

John says on 22/Sep/09
Can't believe this hasn't been upgraded yet...theres so much evidence to him being 5'8.5 at the very minimum

Anonymous says on 19/Sep/09
These 5'10 rumors are ridiculous. I already have trouble buying 5'9 for him. He actually looks 5'7 most of the time. Let's say 5'8, because he is still much taller than Dan and Emma. But there's a big height difference between him and 5'11 Freddie Stroma(Cormac McClaggen).

Mister P says on 15/Sep/09
Damn, he's listed as 5'10 in quite a few websites.

mesh says on 26/Jul/09
WOW! For real only 172 Cm? i thought he always look pretty tall, but hell now i am happy cos i am 178 Cm.. lol but either wise he is a great actor! :)

umad80 says on 24/Jul/09
Jens, it's obvious from recent pictures that Rupert isn't this height. That he's at least as tall as Tom Felton (whois 5'8.5") to maybe a tad taller (photocall pics have him taller, premiere pics seem to be same height). He hasn't been upgraded despite mounting evidence that he's taller than this. Dan, however, doesn't look to be the 5'5" he claims. (Lisa, he wishes he was 5'8" and yet you assume he's 5'7" from this? He only wishes to be an inch taller? lol He's claimed 5'5" for years now, but he looks 5'4.5" or there abouts...)

Jens says on 24/Jul/09
It's very suprising to me that he's only 5'7.75. He absolutely towers over Radcliffe in the latest movie.

lisa says on 23/Jul/09
In a recent MTV.com interview, Daniel says that he wishes he were 5'8(or 5'7, can't remember which), so at most he's 5'7. Rupert still has a few inches on him, so I'm throwing in 5'9, maaybe 5'10.

marcus says on 21/Jul/09
are you guys serious ive seen an interview where dan says hes 5'5' rupert more like a 5'7flat

john says on 20/Jul/09
Wow I always thought of him as a 5'9ish

chris says on 20/Jul/09
Well rob if u have tom felton at 5ft 8.5 then u havta change rupert to at least that from the evidence in the pc below. and seeing as he always wears flat shoes hed be at a disadvantage yet still taller

umad80 says on 18/Jul/09
Oh yeah, Dan is no 5'8", but Rupert is definitely there or above. If you watch the scene when Ron's talking about his relationship with Lavender, Rupert's got quite a few inches on Dan... I mean, it's really noticeable. Like around 4" noticeable. I mean, I realize movies aren't the best indicator, but you have to wonder there. lol Especially with all the pics of Rupert and Tom Felton looking pretty much the same height and Dan looking 4" or so shorter! C'mon. When is Rupert getting an upgrade?

Anonymous says on 16/Jul/09
Lol, Dan has never been close to 5'8. 5'5 at best. Rupert is about 5'8. He looks about that in HBP, and he looked 5'7 in the previous one.

Frank says on 16/Jul/09
It's funny cause in the book he is a very tall slim guy, but in the book Dudley also is blond so who cares.

James S says on 15/Jul/09
I just saw the latest Harry Potter movie this morning...lol, Dan Radcliffe is 5'8 and Rupert looked NOTICEABLY taller than Dan, which I would put him at 5'10 legit.

umad80 says on 13/Jul/09
In the photocall pics, Rupert looks taller, but at NYC, Rupert looks fractionally shorter. I agree there. I think Rupert needs an upgrade and Dan needs a downgrade. Saw Dan at The Today Show and I could look him in the eye, but he felt a tad shorter than me. Not sure if he had better shoes or not (mine gave me an inch). Was right in front of Rupert at the premiere (got to interview him) and he seemed as tall as my dad (5'10" at peak, but probably closer to 5'9" now), but he had better shoes. So definitely a strong 5'8" and probably above. Definitely is NOT taller than 5'9", but definitely not shorter than 5'8". Emma was wearing HUGE heels. Probably 4-5" because they had the extra inch or so as a platform, plus the heel looked like 3 or so inches. Bonnie I would say is not 5'5" because I am 5'5" (5'6" in my shoes) and her heels made her a giant next to me. lol

O uOb says on 12/Jul/09
This... is a really long arguement. : - D I'm sad that none of the Rpat images are there anymore. ;___;

Anonymous says on 12/Jul/09
Yeah, Daniel looks very short in this photocall. He's closer to 5'4, I think. Rupert and Tom are about the same height but I think Tom is fractionally taller. In most pictures, Tom looks a little bit taller. 5'8.25 for Rupert and 5'8.5 for Tom. Emma must be shorter than 5'5 too since she is shorter than Bonnie Wright. Bonnie is about 5'5.

Anonymous says on 8/Jul/09
Daniel = OWNED lol Click Here

umad80 says on 7/Jul/09
C'mon now... after seeing the HBP photocall, can you honestly keep a straight face and say 5'7.75"? Look! Click Here - and that's one of many photos. I also think Dan is 5'4" or so... no way is he 5'5". Tom and Rupert have over 4" on him. They pretty much all had the same footwear.

Anonymous says on 6/Jul/09
This guys height is hard to pin down. He is most most likely percieved to be taller than he really is, due to his acting partners rather miserable height. I'm gonna go with my gut on this, and say he is exactly my height - 5'8.5

umad80 says on 5/Jul/09
Okay, more proof that Rupert is over 5'8". If Rove is 5'7.5" (though claims 5'8") and Rupert probably has a little more shoe, then he's definitely at least a half inch taller than Rove, probably a bit more... Click Here - go about 1:20 into the video. They never stand perfectly next to each other, but Rupert seems to have pretty much an inch on the man. Like I said, probably better shoe because of the Ron shoes (they look like construction boots - giving around an inch?) so the difference in shoe is probably around a half inch. Rupert's shoes: Click Here - Seriously, Rupert is a solid 5'8" I'd think... arguably taller than that, but definitely NOT shorter than 5'8".

umad80 says on 4/Jul/09
Hmm. Well, if nothing else, Rupert deserves to be upgraded to at least 5'8". LOL The latest interview, "'I once read I was going to be an oompa loompa in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,' he half smiles noting the dig at his 5ft 8in height." Second column, around the last paragraph: Click Here

Really, I think he's 5'8.5" like Tom Felton, but 5'8" seems reasonable enough considering he tends to have a solid 3" on Dan and Emma.

Anonymous says on 3/Jul/09
From a recent interview with FHM:
"... he half smiles, noting the dig at his 5ft 8in height."
Click Here

umad80 says on 25/Jun/09
So let me get this straight... Tom is closer to the camera, better shoes, and 5'8.5" and Rupert is still this height with only maybe being not even a whole inch shorter in the picture? Rupert is pretty much the same height as Tom. People who have met him have said that he's pretty much around 5'9" maybe not exact, but close enough...

Anonymous says on 24/Jun/09
Actually, I think he's really 172 cm. He's slightly shorter than Tom Felton and Tom was proved to be 5'8-5'9.

umad80 says on 19/Jun/09
Rupert is NOT 5'6" or 5'6.5" now THAT is crazy. In OotP he was pretty much the same height as Tom. Click Here and Click Here And these were Tom's shoes: Click Here and of course Rupert was wearing chucks!

C'mon Rob, doesn't Rupert deserve an upgrade? These are pretty good indications that he's 5'8" or maybe a tad taller.

Anonymous says on 19/Jun/09
Tom felton is only 5'8.5'', this guy cant be any taller than 5'6'' or 5'6.5'' at the max.. u guys got to wake up there is no way near he is 5'9'' that would make him taller than Tom! lol

Sydney says on 24/May/09
well looks like we gotta wait for the new movie, but in the posters Rupert looks 5"9

yoyo says on 21/May/09
if you notice rupert in harry potter & the order of the phoenix is not much taller than dan & emma .but at hand ,foot & wand ceremony when they are barefoot rupert is looking very much taller than daniel & emma.watch the video at 9:27
Click Here

umad80 says on 19/May/09
'please' I think it's funny you chose that video (also something that took place like 3 years ago) considering that Stephen Fry says they have a combined height of 11 feet 9 inches which means that they were probably measured with their shoes on. Moseley has dress shoes on giving him over an 1" extra so for argument's sake he's about 5'10.75" barefoot and with shoes he'd be 6' (assuming they're giving him 1.25" extra in height). Rupert had on chucks which probably gave him a half inch extra in height so barefoot would be 5'8.5" and with shoes 5'9" this would equal out to the 11'9" combined height. Otherwise Moseley would be over 5'11" for the current height to work.

jade says on 19/May/09
i think he's 5'8.5? yep. yoyo's ryt. he has grown few cms this year

Please says on 15/May/09
Click Here

william moseley towers over him.

yoyo says on 6/May/09
i dont think that Rupert is below 5'8".no doubt his height is 5'8.75".i think he has grown by a few cms this year

hey. says on 5/May/09
Stephanie -- Emma's taller than Dan...this much is clear in the newly released set photos.

Stephanie says on 2/May/09
I'd say Rupert is between 5' 8" and 5' 10". It's hard to tell because he slouches a lot and I'm not sure if Dan and Emma are telling the truth (they both claim 5' 6").

hey. says on 28/Apr/09
Lol, and we still remain at 5'7.75".....;)

umad80 says on 14/Mar/09
I want to point out something that a lot of people don't always notice. Dan tries to stand tall and push down the people he stands next to. I've watched the video, and any video where you can see up close to when they start posing for pictures like this, Dan does this. Rupert isn't even standing at his best, and Dan who is standing better than Rupert, gives a clear 4" difference. But hell, if Dan and Emma are only 5'4.5" then Rupert is 5'8.5" because, as I said, there is a definite 4" difference here.

Anonymous says on 12/Mar/09
ok, he must be at least 5'8 since he was much taller than Dan and Emma during the ceremony. But again, Dan and Emma are not quite 5'5, I think. Probably 5'4.5.

umad80 says on 9/Mar/09
If Rupert gives the impression of 5'6", then Dan and Emma give the impression of 5'2"ish. Click Here - proof right here that Rupert is well over 5'8". If you believe Dan and Emma are 5'5" and nothing under. (Of course, to not say a solid 5'9" is to say that the photo isn't the best.)

Anonymous says on 8/Mar/09
Shortest looking 5'9 guy I've ever seen. He really can give a 5'6 impression sometimes. But considering his usual posture and his footwear, maybe he's really 5'9.

umad80 says on 3/Mar/09
Robbie Sheehan is being estimated around 6'1" and Rupert seems around 4"-5" shorter. In all honesty, Rupert is probably around an inch taller than what he's listed as here. He's not a solid 5'9", though I think anything below 5'8.5" is out of the question.

Nik says on 28/Feb/09
I will admit he does look quite short sometimes. but thats usually compared to tall people. I'd say he's 5-8 because he can look shorter but when he does its usually his posture that does it.

umad80 says on 15/Feb/09
To be fair, Robbie Sheehan is like 6'0" or 6'1" (it is unclear yet; he could be taller) and I'm not sure how tall Kim Nixon is, but she had heels. Rupert was leaning into the two of them. I guess that has a lot to do with it because I noticed in videos he looked an inch or two taller than he appeared in pictures. It's pretty much estimated that Rupert is between 5'8" and 5'9". Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous says on 12/Feb/09
I also noticed that he was short next to his co-stars. He always looks quite short, actually. I can't believe he's 5'9 or something. I've never seen a 5'9 guy look as short as Rupert. He must be about 5'7.5. And he usually looks 5'6-5'7.

2p@c says on 11/Feb/09
In the harry potter boooks ron is supposed to be towering over harry but with 5ft7 rupert, not really i think lol

umad80 says on 9/Feb/09
Rob, I have a height question for you and it pertains to Rupert... I noticed yesterday at the Berlin Film Festival that pictures, Rupert looked short against his co-stars (I don't know how tall his co-stars are actually.) in pictures. However, when you viewed him in video, he looked taller compared to his female co-star and not the 4.5-5" he looks to the male co-star. Is there a particular reason for this? I thought maybe it's just that Rupert definitely isn't standing straight... he's laid back, and at times gets closer to his co-stars and ends up leaning to one side whereas with the film he's not doing that and you get the truer height.

Brian says on 9/Feb/09
In no way this guy is taller than 5ft8! He simply doesn`t looks it besides Radcliffe, Pattinson, Emma Watson etc.

Jacques says on 31/Jan/09
5'8 guys like myself never really give an impression of being tall.

but rupert does have this.. "almost tall" kinda feeling.
i really think it is fair for him to be 5'9.... MAYBE even 5'10 but thats pushing it.

upgrade maybe??

Anonymous says on 6/Jan/09
he's somewhere around 1,75 cm 5.9 i say

umad80 says on 3/Jan/09
If you're going by Will Moseley, you have to remember that Will was wearing dress shoes and Rupert was wearing chucks.

sofie says on 30/Dec/08
In a picture of william moseley and rupert grint standing next to each other rupert is about 2-3 (estimate) inches shorter then william, and william moseley is 5'10. So that would make him about 5'7-8.

Anonymous says on 10/Dec/08
This is just depressing, 2 years and still no change.

aijju says on 10/Dec/08
i think rup is 5'8 or 5'8 ½.

Nik says on 8/Dec/08
I still say he's 5-8. He slouches alot is why he looks a little shorter.

Jon says on 2/Dec/08
In harry potter, ron weasley is suppose to be quite tall compared to harry and hermione. At 5ft 7.75, its not really very appealing is it? i was expecting him to be at least 5'10 or sumthing. my god.... if i met those three in person id tower over them, and im only 5'11.5! wow!

Anonymous says on 30/Nov/08
I was appeasing you.

umad80 says on 27/Oct/08
Seriously, you need to open the picture and make it scroll down to the top of Rupert's head. Rupert is right in the middle of his eyes, making him 4.5" shorter. Then you put in that Rob was wearing a cowboy boot type shoe (look: Click Here), take away that Rupert is slightly closer to the camera, and Rob is leaning down a tad, and you have to wonder. Why isn't Rob taller than this if he's 6'1"? If Rupert is barely 5'8" according to Rob, then Rupert should only come to his nose area with the shoes. You can say what you want, but the picture you gave is the best one, because Rupert is the shortest here. Then there is the pics of him standing next to 5'11" Jason Isaacs: Click Here He looks around 6'. I do believe the hair gives off a terrible illusion and probably because he tends to wear cowboy style boots.

Anonymous says on 26/Oct/08
Yes, umad, but Rob definitely looks taller than 6'1" compared to the other cast members (i.e., Kristen, Ashely Greene, Nikki, Rupert, etc.). You are simply kidding yourself if you think Rupert looked 5'8" or 5'9" next to Rob, even considering Rob's heel advantage. Rob simply towered over Rupert. Click Here
Rob's not even standing up properly and Rupert's not even up to his eyes, come on now, eyebrows is 4 inches, so Grint at 5'8" would put Rob at around 6'2". Rob also looked around 6'2" with Ed Westwick and the Phelps twin. Check out his page.

Anonymous says on 26/Oct/08
haha, now you're just not going to answer me?

umad80 says on 25/Oct/08
I dunno, never thought of it much. Rob always seemed around 6'1" or perhaps a little shorter than that. (During GoF premiere, pics with Rupert suggested shorter than he claims.) But Kristen is definitely around 5'4" because the one playing Jacob is supposed 5'9" (ought to be interesting to see how they make him to be 6'5" or more in later movies, though he could still grow. I think he's only 16) and she seems definitely around that height in pics together. I don't know about the others.

Rupert and Rob seem to be friends, so it'll be interesting to see if Rupert shows up at the premiere in December. Might gauge how tall they both are.

Anonymous says on 20/Oct/08
Umad (I'm sorry that I didn't know what the name was referring to?), I was not asking you if you have read Twilight in order to make a joke or anything, I absolutely love those books, as I love Harry Potter, and am super excited for the movie! I think it's great that books like HP and Twilight can appeal to everyone, that is what makes them great and unique.

I just asked to suggest that we discuss the actors' heights of that film (Rob, Kristen, Ashely, etc.) because more photos and such seem to be coming out about them as the movie will be released in November! How about it? I think that Rob is about 6'1" or 6'2", Kristen 5'3" or 5'4", Ashely 5'4", and Nikki 5'5". You?

umad80 says on 20/Oct/08
"LOL (as you like to do, which, I don't quite understand, seeing as you are about 30 years old I believe)....if you've not noticed (as you probably haven't, unsurprisingly Rupert is the only HP actor's page you visit), but I haven't really said anything about Emma's or Dan's heights in months, I simply do not care because it is pretty easy to see that Rob is not going to change their heights on here, especially Rupert who he has even said he has evidence that he's no more than this height (he's not even commented on any other HP actors pages, so I think that says summat, doesn't it?)" <=--Run-on sentence. You kept separating everything with a comma.

I act younger because I use the internet acronym 'lol'? How does that work, exactly? Especially since you've done it yourself and claim to be 17, so in actuality, I guess you act like a 13 year old girl *and* trying to sound older than 17 now. And it's not like I'm typing, 'D00d ur soooo lame!1!!1111! Y R U here u dumass!111!!" like most of these 13 year old girls. (And yes, I am aware that dumb is spelled with a 'b', but most of the 13 year olds online do not spell it correctly.) *snort* If you think using an internet acronym like 'lol' or 'brb' or something along those lines makes you sound 13, then so be it. I don't mind. I also find it most amusing that since I brought up your run-on sentence you have tried your very best not to do it and even started separating into paragraphs. Point to me!

I also cannot take up half the page when I only do about three or four small paragraphs. Seriously, your sarcasm lacks, perhaps you should not try it. And also, your math is a bit off. Not that I'm stellar at it, but at least I know that if I write something on the 17th and then someone's response shows up on the 18th that it would be at least 24 hours in between. Unlike yourself who just responded on the same day, which would be less than 24 hours. Oh, and if you're counting, it is now the 20th and it took me two days to respond.

Umad is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A show you were sadly supposedly too young to have notice, and in such case, missed out on one of TV's greatest cult show. And yes, I have read Twilight and the subsequent books that followed and do know about the movie. What exactly is your point? I'm also reading Artemis Fowl and know that a movie is in the works. I also have read The Spiderwick Chronicles and watched the movie. I also read Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare, Harry Potter, To Kill A Mocking Bird, A Series of Unfortunate Events, books by E.B. White, Bunnicula, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, Lord of the Rings, Oliver Twist... Should I be going on or is there a ridiculous point? Where you going to make fun of that fact? I mean, Twilight is just for teens, right? Adults can't enjoy this? But I guess I can't enjoy Harry Potter, either. After all, it's just a kids book.

Oh, and btw (Yes, I am using *gasp* 'btw'! How 13 year old girlish of me!) Rob has answered several of my comments. You know, you might want to look at the end of the post and see that he has. And I'm sure right now he wants us to stick to height instead of you trying to one up me... which I haven't quite figured out why. But I am quite amused by the whole thing. What *are* you trying to prove any ways?

Oh hey Rob, whatever happened to you making Rupert an actual 5'8"? I remember you saying that 2008 might be the year. :P And I have to ask, if you think he is closer to 5'8" then anything else, do you think Tom Felton must be shorter than the listed 5'9"? I mean, you've got to admit, the Order of the Phoenix premiere photos of those two does make a strong argument that he isn't a weak 5'8" but closer to the 5'9" mark. I mean, accept for one or two photos where you can tell he's not standing all that well, Rupert looked around an 1" less, but can easily be made up if he was wearing different shoes.

Anonymous says on 18/Oct/08
Rob never answers you, at least I've actually got him to respond to me a few times. As for run-on sentences, I know what they are. Actually, I don't think it's simply a long post, I just thought it funny that your posts took up 1/2 the page and, now, that it took you less than a day to respond to my comment. Anyway, my sentences are not run-on, so I don't quite understand what you mean by that.

If you are trying to say that I act older than I am, in a way you obviously think is bad (I'm not the only one making a fool of myself, herself innit?), how can you say this? You are thirty and trying to use the term "lol". Please, just please, do not do that. You speak like a 13 year old girl. You are acting younger than your age, are you not? I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous (and please don't respond, "just because I'm thirty doesn't mean that I can't speak like that"). I know plenty of older people that find it quite all right if they don't speak like that.

I've actually got some questions ---> what does umad80 stand for? Also, have you read the Twilight series and/or heard that a film has been made?

umad80 says on 18/Oct/08
Run-on sentences would be sentences that do not stop. You know, they do not end with punctuation, and is not that we have a lot to say in the comments. Which, by the way, would be that way because I've separated the thoughts into mini paragraphs. It's called separating your thoughts into coherent structure.

Oh, and I only posted the Rupert Everett picture, not the others. But I was conversing with Rob about it, so posting them again was just to get his opinion since he didn't answer last time. At least I'm not trying to use a year and a half old picture where Emma is wearing better shoes and both are walking in it as proof. Rupert is actually standing still and wearing less shoe. lol

Lastly, are we still stuck on 'honor' with a 'u' to prove your very Britishness? Rob already looked up your IP and proved you were NOT from the UK. Stop trying to insinuate that you are. It makes you look hopeless. And I couldn't possibly have been here since 2000. For one, Harry Potter the movie didn't come out until 2001. For two, Rupert's height would have continued to change since then since he was only 12 at the time. Thirdly, the domain was not purchased until 2004. (Yes, I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but sarcasm only works if you actually make sense with it.) It actually is fun insulting a 17 year old who continues to make a fool of themselves. What can I say? I get a big kick out of people who try to act older than what they claim.

And Rob, I still don't agree with you. But it sure as hell is fun to see who will be right in the end. :P

Anonymous says on 17/Oct/08
hahaha, you can't read my run-on sentences? You've taken up half of this page with your last comment, so don't speak to me about ADD comments and run-on sentences. btw, have you not been repeating that stuff ever since you came on this site in the year 2000? Come on man....at least I wait until new photos come out to go on the attack (and your Wild Target photos don't count because, oh yes, you've already posted them on here). And, as for your age, it's not so much that I've memorised your specifics as, surprisingly, I'm not stuck on you, it's the fact that I have a good memory, which, is not a crime either. Also, I just have to say it, I'm glad that I've got a "pushing 30"-year-old actually trying to insult a 17-year-old, this is definitely an honour.

umad80 says on 14/Oct/08
Seriously Rob? Even after the ceremony pics when the trio have no shoes on and you even admitted in that point in time Rupert looked 5'9"? And what about Wild Target set pics? Around his co-stars, a 5'9"ish height wasn't out the realm of possibility.

Rupert with Bill Nighy, which you have listed as 6'1": Click Here (Bill is wearing a dress shoe btw, and Rupert is wearing perhaps something close to what he normally wears. I'll share a pic in a minute showing this.)

Rupert with 6'4" Rupert Everett: Click Here (You can see both Ruperts' shoe here for comparison.) Rupert looks 7.5" shorter. In a perfect picture, that'd make him 5'8.5" but since it is not, and Rupert E. seems to have a lot more shoe to him, and the angle of the pic, and Rupert G. slouching - you could argue that the gap is less than what appears...)

Rupert with 5'8.25" (according to your site) co-star Emily Blunt: Click Here (Emily was seen in two types of shoes. One was with heels, another with boots that probably didn't give her much advantage. First the heel: Click Here and then the boot: Click Here)

But... are you saying you don't believe that person who sent in the photo?

umad80 says on 12/Oct/08
If you don't care, why are you here? Bashing others? Trying to insult them? Trying to sound intelligent with it? This is a page discussion about Rupert's height. I don't care if Rob doesn't change it, I just wonder why he's stuck on it. Especially since I know that he received a picture from a fan with Rupert and he has yet to put it up. (Still a mystery. Any reason Rob? I can ask them to resend it.) Putting it up would make Rob have to change Rupert's height. Perhaps slightly but it would still have to be changed.

Oh, and if I were 50 years old and talked about Rupert's height, I have that right. Rob has no rules, and no one says I'm not allowed to. (Btw, I am not 30, I said "pushing 30." Good to know that you're stuck on me like this, it means a lot.) And of course, at least I haven't changed my name or my gender to prove a point. I've been steadfast, and never lied about who I was. I'm not embarrassed by who I am, and I'm having fun. Even if Rob never changes Rupert's height, despite how obvious it is that he needs to, I've had a lot of fun and have met some awesome people along the way.

And I'll never weaver from being a fan of Rupert's and want to talk about his height. And if you want to continue talking about Emma being 5'7" and Dan being 5'6", then you should. Rob may never change his mind (nor will I), but what's the point of stopping what you believe? This site doesn't make or break any truths, it is just Rob's guestimation and I'm sure he hopes people have a lot of fun along the way.

Oh, and when I finally got through all your run-on sentences, I can tell you that you have indeed visited their pages very recently. The last comment from you on Dan, and I would bet $50 bucks it is you, on October 1st talking about Dan being taller and bulkier. You also visited Emma's site in September, BUT no one has said anything on there since your last comment, so that doesn't truly count. And the same with some other HP actors, no one is really commenting, so you don't really get to say you haven't visited for months on purpose.

Anonymous says on 12/Oct/08
LOL (as you like to do, which, I don't quite understand, seeing as you are about 30 years old I believe)....if you've not noticed (as you probably haven't, unsurprisingly Rupert is the only HP actor's page you visit), but I haven't really said anything about Emma's or Dan's heights in months, I simply do not care because it is pretty easy to see that Rob is not going to change their heights on here, especially Rupert who he has even said he has evidence that he's no more than this height (he's not even commented on any other HP actors pages, so I think that says summat, doesn't it?) Anyway, you're in denial. Nobody but you cares about Rupert's height, so just don't try to persuade Rob, he clearly does not care.

umad80 says on 11/Oct/08
Torny, if you're talking about the picture of him promoting PoA, then yes, he was shorter. That was back when he was still pretty young about 15 years old... that doesn't really count any more. :)

Torny says on 10/Oct/08
I was surprised, but hey! he must be aournd 5f 7.75 (172cm) because I saw him right next to Japanese singers and he was around one of them who is 170cm...
They're not reaaly tall on HP's stage...

umad80 says on 9/Oct/08
Who is ranting? And who is embarrassing themselves? I'm stating facts and a sound argument. I'm not saying things like, 'omg! how dare u think he's that short!!!' LOL At least I'm not insisting Emma is 5'7" like *some* people. And I'm certainly not arguing that Rupert IS 5'10" but rather that he isn't as short as Rob listed him as and wondering why he's still stuck on this 5'7.75" stuff. So, really, if anyone is embarrassing themselves, it would be you, "AJ".

Anonymous says on 6/Oct/08
Yeah, umad80, did you see what Rob wrote? Please, before you embarrass yourself further, get of this site....right? You are not getting anywhere with your ranting.

-AJ.

umad80 says on 5/Oct/08
Still stuck on that? What, Rupert can't grow pass 20? I mean, if Rupert Everett can, why can't Rupert? It's not uncommon for guys to grow pass the 18 mark that they usually stop at. We've already shown you pictures from his new movie where he looks to be a lot taller than what you have him as. And at the ceremony you've already admitted that he looked 5'9" in a few photos. You know, where they're barefoot! And let's not forget that he was around the same height as Tom Felton at the Order of the Phoenix London premiere. (Tom with slightly better shoes.) Let's face it, he may not be 5'10" - I don't know unless I had a tape measure, but he certainly isn't as short as you have him. What do you have against Rupert being taller than what you ESTIMATE him to be?

Anonymous says on 5/Oct/08
I'd say he's about 5'8 at least and 5'10 at most.

Anonymous says on 30/Sep/08
Thus losing 3.25"? Wow, no way.

PaleCabbage says on 28/Sep/08
I tend to be slocuhed and stand at 5'6, when in reality i am 5'9.25. I reckon ruperts in the 5'10 region

umad80 says on 24/Sep/08
I know that Rob has Bill listed at 6'1" here (but would be 6'2" or so with the shoes vs. Rupert) and Emily Blunt as 5'8.25" though obvious with those huge heels and looking at Bill and also with Rupert Everett... isn't it obvious that Rupert is closer to what his agency is listing him as? Between a strong 5'9" and 5'10" seems about right now.

Evanna says on 23/Sep/08
Rupert with 6'2" Bill Nighy: Click Here
Bill is wearing dress shoes vs. Rupert's trainers: Click Here
Rupert with 5'7" Emily Blunt who is wearing 3" heels (check the pic above): Click Here

Conclusion: Rupert is definitely taller than listed here.

umad80 says on 22/Sep/08
Okay, Rupert looks around 7.5" shorter than 6'4" Rupert Everett here: Click Here - but he's slouching down and probably has less of a heel. But even so, Rupert looks to be closer to 5'9" then to 5'8"!

umad80 says on 16/Sep/08
I don't see where I said that was a good thing? I was making fun of that. Sorry if I was conveying that better.

It'll be interesting to see him standing next to Bill Nighy in "Wild Target" for sure. That will hopefully give us a better estimate.

Anonymous says on 15/Sep/08
Well, umad80, I've not been on this site for awhile, so I've not heard Rob say that he may upgrade Rupert to your beloved 5'8" but, on that note, why would Rupert's being upgrade to 5'8" make anything in this world better? It seriously is .25", look at a ruler, that's nothing, you would not be able to tell a 5'7.75" person & a 5'8" person apart at all.....plus, Rupert is listed as shorter than Zac Efron, now that is just sad......

umad80 says on 13/Sep/08
lol I don't expect Rob to ever change Rupert's height, despite him saying he might upgrade Rupert to 5'8". :P Even bare foot ceremony pictures showed Rupert at least 4" on his co-stars. And in 2004, while promoting Prisoner of Azkaban, he never looked that much shorter than 5'8" Chris Columbus. I mean, there are shots of him during the photocall that he looks 5'7"-ish and some during NYC premiere that he looks a little shorter but has worse shoes. So if you figure he was probably near 5'7" in 2004, how could he only be this tall 4 years later? lol Grant you he was 15/16 then, but still. He's definitely taller than this.

Anonymous says on 10/Sep/08
Wow, and, once again Rupert's height has not been changed in about 10 years - does this give the impression that Rob really does not care about the HP actors? Ehm, hmmm, I think yes :).

Rose says on 10/Sep/08
i am 5 ft 7.75 too.. he always looks very tall in harry potter but i guess he is not :p

Daii says on 16/Aug/08
Ron is supposed to be tall in the Harry Potter books, and I thought rupert was a 6'0 kind of boy but obviously not. this is a revelation

Anonymous says on 25/Jul/08
yeah, maybe 5'9. I agree we have to take the shoes into consideration.But I'd rather say 5'8 or 5'8.5

umad80 says on 14/Jul/08
You probably think that because when Harry Potter actors are at certain events, they're usually wearing better shoes. For instance at premieres and say the NMAs, Rupert was wearing chucks vs. everyone else wearing dress shoes. This is obviously going to make him look shorter and look more 5'7" so you have to take that into consideration. It's obvious Rupert is 5'8" at the least and closer to 5'9". Barefoot at the ceremony, Rupert had around 4" on Dan and Emma.

Anonymous says on 13/Jul/08
He might be 5'9 but if he is, he must have the worst posture ever. It's true that he can look pretty short. Most of the time, he doesn' look taller than 5'7.

umad80 says on 10/Jul/08
Well, Rupert is definitely at least 5'8". He was photographed with Robert Knox, the actor who got stabbed. That boy's father claims his son was 6'1". And there is a definitely a 5" difference. Click Here - Trouble is, it's hard to know what shoes Robert Knox was wearing. If they are regular tennis shoes, it's obvious Rupert is taller than 5'8". If they were chucks, Rupert is definitely closer to 5'8". My guess? 5'8.5" because of the way Robert is holding his head and the possibility of shoe difference.

umad80 says on 23/Jun/08
Er. Not really. It's more like 3.75"-4" difference. (The top of Rupert's head is around Matt's eyebrows, basically putting him 4" shorter.) And Matt is standing more straight than Rupert in that particular picture. And while Rupert has the advantage of standing in front, he has a disadvantage in shoes. He is wearing chucks while Matt is wearing dress shoes. So I think Rupert has a better chance of gaining height on Matt if all these factors were evened out rather than losing anything. IMO if they were standing next to each other, with the same shoes, and the same posture, Rupert would be around 3.5" shorter. And that is only if Matt is 6". While he's estimated there by the picture with the fan, that particular fan said more like 6'1".

Anonymous says on 22/Jun/08
I think Rob has him right at 5'7.5'' - 5'7.75'' and not quite 5'8'' either, there is a 4.5 inch difference between him and Matt there but if Matt stood up straight there would be legit 5 inch difference Click Here he still can give really short impressions even as low as 5'5.5'' sometimes

manoj says on 18/Jun/08
i stood next to rupert i am 5'9 and he was almost half inch shorter can say more closer to 5'8

umad80 says on 17/Jun/08
Sorry Maxette, but you must be thinking of someone else. There is no way Rupert is 5'6". Just absolutely no way. I can agree with Rob's 5'7.75" before I can agree with 5'6". I've seen him several times. Like I said, even at the GoF premiere when I had better shoes that would make me much taller than my 5'5" height... Rupert was still taller. Hell, look here: Click Here - if Rupert where only 5'6" then Dan and Emma would only be about 5'2"-5'3". And that is the claim that Devon Murray had and Rob estimated him closer to 5'2". You can see that if Rupert had his head up straight and they had the same shoes (Devon's most likely wearing dress shoes vs. Rupert's chucks) there would definitely be 5" to 6" difference between he and Devon here: Click Here and again, this was during GoF era. The picture already looks 4"-4.5" so you add in these factors plus the way Rupert looks slightly closer to the camera you're getting way closer to 6" difference putting Rupert between 5'7" and 5'8".

maxette says on 12/Jun/08
nope I was literally right next to him (several times) and he was def shorter then me by a few inches. there is no way he's 5'9" as he would be eye to eye with me. Also appears to be slouchy and bends his head but is still well below 5'9". he's not a big guy either, lol. he's tiny!! i was surprised. Weasley twins are tall though, i was sitting down when i saw them though so cant estimate.

Stephanie says on 29/May/08
I don't think he's 5' 9"... but he's not shorter than 5' 7" either.

umad80 says on 27/May/08
There is no way that Rupert is 5'6"ish. lol I'm 5'5" and had on shoes that made me 5'6"ish probably even close to 5'7" and Rupert was taller than me. And this was at the GoF premiere and he had on chucks as always. And if he's 5'6"ish, then Dan and Emma are around 5'3"ish and Tom Felton is closer to 5'7".

Nik says on 24/May/08
There is no way this guy is only 5-7.75 He's really about 5-8.75 to 5-9. He looks much shorter because of his laid back appearence. If he stood up straight he would be 5-9. There's no doubt in my mind.

maxette says on 24/May/08
I walked past him in the corridor at work several times, I'm 5'8.5 and he's nowhere near my height at all. I would say he's about 5'6ish max and looks tiny!

umad80 says on 23/May/08
Yeah, Rupert's a big guy. I think that adds to the illusion of shortness when in fact he's probably pretty close to 5'9". And yes, Rupert is also very laid back and always wearing chucks. When the trio are barefoot at the HWF ceremony, it's obvious that he has around 4" on Emma and Dan.

So yeah, 5'8.5" can be very accurate, though I think closer to 5'9" is more likely. Matt (Neville) is 6'0" so if Rupert is 5'9", then three inches shorter would make sense. And it has been debated on if Matt is taller than 6'. He looked 6'1" with the 6'3" twins, but 6'0" is pretty legit too. And there are plenty of photos of Rupert standing with 5'9" Tom Felton at the OotP premiere in London and there was barely any difference... just mostly in footwear! Here are some pictures of them together: Click Here and here is what Tom's shoes looked like: Click Here And here is a picture of the trio from the OotP London premiere: Click Here - Emma is standing really close to the camera so it's harder to tell with her, but Dan would have about an inch or so in shoe over Rupert and they're standing pretty close together. Even with the advantage, you can see at least two inches. And the trio barefoot at the ceremony: Click Here

Ahleks, these are pictures that are circulating on the internet right now. They're all from Order of the Phoenix. In fact, if you look at the scene where the trio, Neville and the twins are talking about the Room of Requirement, you'll see that the trio are wearing those exact same clothes found in the promo shot. (Actually even before, when they're at the Hog's Head, but it's hard to tell what Ron is wearing with the hideous jacket. lol)

Ahleks says on 23/May/08
Well, if you're right on this one, I'm stoned. They just can't be over 16 on this pic. Dan and Rupert look like kids.

Grint for sure, looked older in Order of the Phoenix.

Anonymous says on 22/May/08
Maybe he's 5'9 but he's surely not 5'10. In most pictures, he just looks a little bit taller than Dan and Emma. Do you think a 5'10 guy would look so short next to a 5'5 guy and a 5'5 girl?And I think Emma may be 5'4. He looks more like 5'8,I think. In Harry Potter 5, he didn't look taller than 5'7 to me. Or maybe 5'8 at most. He was not so much taller than Harry.And he was considerably shorter than Neville. But maybe he had a bad posture. He effectively seems to have a very laid back posture and I think he always wears flat shoes. It's more his style.That's why I think he can be 5'9 but no way he's 5'10. I agree that he needs a little upgrade. Maybe 5'8.5 (174 cm)

123456789 says on 22/May/08
When he was on MTV here in Canada , he looked to be about 5'9'' - 5' 10'' , the 2 hosts that were on that day are 5'8'' and 5'11'' and he was almost as tall as the taller host. He's taller than I thought , thats for sure. This was during the summer when he was on TV here. He's also heftier than I thought , he looks to be about 160-170 lbs. If you type 'Rupert Grint MTV' on youtube you get some clips of him on MTV Canada and theres an 11 second clip of him greeting the hosts and he's just about as tall as the 5'11'' host , who wears glasses.

umad80 says on 22/May/08
Ahleks, do you realize this was taken last year for Order of the Phoenix? Making the trio between 17-19 years old? Meaning that most likely they're not growing any more? (Rupert and Dan could still have a growth spurt, that's possible, but could just as well be unlikely.) Rupert is going on 20, he would've been 14 six years ago. Dan is going on 19, he'd have been 14 five years ago. And Emma just turned 18 and she was 14 four years ago. You might actually want to look a little bit before you make assumptions like this because this is what they looked like at 14: Click Here

Ahleks says on 21/May/08
umad80, do you realize they were like 14 on this pic?

umad80 says on 11/May/08
Really, 5'9" seems to be more accurate. Just look at this picture: Click Here - if Rupert and Emma stand up straight and are closer together, there is definitely at least 4" there as there is at least three where they are standing. It's hard to say why Dan looks taller other than the fact that he's standing closest to the camera and the shoes?

Julie says on 25/Mar/08
He looks between 5'8" and (possibly) 5'9" to me. Closer to 5'8", I'd wager. He has rather laid-back posture (i.e slouches more often than not) and would tend to look shorter than he is when next to people with better posture like Daniel and Emma.

umad80 says on 25/Mar/08
The only way for Rupert to be in the 5'6" to 5'7" range is for Dan and Emma to be about 5'2" to 5'3" and for me to be in the same range. I've seen him twice and both times he was taller than me. And he had considerable height to Dan and Emma at the HWF ceremony. I always say at least 4" in bare feet, but I will say at least 3"-4" and if Dan is 5'5" (which I think he most likely is, looks to lose height at night) then Rupert is no less than 5'8" and no more than 5'9".

Anonymous KinG says on 25/Mar/08
rupert look no way more than 5ft7.. He look around 5ft6~5ft7 range.. 5ft7.5 might consider only..

Evanna says on 24/Mar/08
An(na)nymous, Radcliffe and Watson are 5'7" only in your dreamland. Dan Rad looks 5'4" next to Daniel Day-Lewis, and Watson is notably shorter than Kate Moss, who's not even 5'6".
Man, you are crazier than my husband's ex-wife.

umad80 says on 24/Mar/08
To put your statement in prospective, *cough*, I have no problem with advocation of someone being taller. However, when it's downright obvious that Emma and Dan are not taller than listed heights, it's just downright stupid. Dan has admitted to being 5'5" and Emma was around, or possibly a bit taller, than him at the HWF ceremony. And Emma was not taller than JKR at the PoB awards. It's just obvious. And if JKR is 5'5" like her claim, which I think is right, when she wore the 3" heels there that would make her 5'8" to Emma's around 5'7.5" about right.

And what you're saying is that the camera angle is actually favoring Rupert despite the fact that Ben Lyons is closer and they are standing on an angle? Well, Rob would have to clear that one up because looking at the 'photos and perspective' part of the site, it looks to me like the angle would favor Ben more than Rupert. Dan was actually standing in a different area and direction then Rupert was, which could explain why it might make him look taller. He was at least 8" shorter than Ben putting Ben at 6'1". Shoes could've been a factor as well obviously. Tom was also just below eye level on Ben and standing where Dan was. Rupert was on the opposite side and on an angle as I said.

Now I admit I haven't seen OotP since I got the DVD, but I have seen it a few times, and I don't remember at any point when Trelawny is getting sacked and Harry/Dan and Hermione/Emma are standing next to McGonagall/Smith. You must be watching something else. They are with the rest of the students watching the spectacle. The only scene where any of the trio are in close proximity of McGonagall/Smith is after Harry has the dream of Mr. Weasley and she and Ron are taking him to see Dumbledore. In that, because of them walking, it's hard to get a clear shot, but Smith always appears to be taller than Dan by anywhere from an inch to two.

Anonymous says on 22/Mar/08
Ehm, yeah, I don't think there is much to give away. Anyway, I really don't think it matters what others think of you on this site; it's a site about heights of celebrities, it's hillarious(ly cool). Anyway, I was actually asking if you would need a comma there, not trying to emphasize a mistake because for all I know it wasn't one....And watch the OotP scene in which Trelawny gets sacked...Smith is wearing heel-ish shoes whereas Dan and Emma are wearing their school shoes, D and E are literally taller than her; watch this scene if you want to know what I am talking about and report back to me. To be honest, I was surprised when I saw the shot in the theatre because Smith proceeds to comfort T and she was as tall as her, who is listed as 5'7", oh actually 5'7.75", on this site. So, it's weird, but that's what we saw, meaning D and E are taller than 5'5", more like 5'7" or 5'8". Also, um, I saw that behind the scenes as well and Rupert looked taller because of the camera angle and, actually, I thought Dan was looking taller than normal in that video, haha...I think it funny that you say that I always advocate Dan and Emma being taller when, in reality, that's what you do with Rupert. Oh yeah, of course Emma looked taller than normal compared to him at that Paris photocall because of her massive heels, my bad. They looked normal to me man.

umad80 says on 18/Mar/08
But she is entertaining, to say the least! I like how she's staying here at Rupert's page and Evanna's but always bringing up Emma's height. lol

To keep this on height: Click Here - The guy, Ben Lyons, interviewing Rupert claims be 6'3". Rupert in that pose right there comes right to the tip of his noes. Mr. Lyons though is technically closer to the camera. Can't tell shoe difference though obviously. All we know is Rupert is wearing the shoes he wears as Ron when they're in school.

Evanna says on 15/Mar/08
Another trademark sentence of hers: "I'm being completely honest!" Whenever she says that, we know she's lying.
Anyway she's already been discredited here many times, proven herself to be a filthy little liar/hypocrite/smart-aleck... no one takes her seriously anymore, Rob least of all.

umad80 says on 14/Mar/08
Oh God, she gives herself away again, Evanna. Remember she used to insist that Dan and Emma were taller than Maggie Smith in OotP? Of course, I don't remember one scene where they were around her to show that, but whatever. lol

I wish Rupert and Dan weren't walking in the new clip from E!. Because it's hard to prove the difference in height... but yes, Rupert looked taller.

Anonymous says on 13/Mar/08
Well, Dan and Emma were taller than her in OotP, so you do the math. Also, I wasn't picking on grammar! I was simply asking a question as to whether you would need, seeing as you are the experienced and older ones; I'm being completely honest! Also, I don't care about the hair, but who's to say I'm underage? I'm not; how old do you think I am, 10?

umad80 says on 12/Mar/08
Oh, look! Picking on grammar and punctuation. So Anna.

But you've got to be kidding me. Greasy hair in the movie? Are you sure you're not thinking of Alan Rickman's wig? There is no way the production would go forth (heh, heh) if someone didn't look "good" and that includes having greasy hair. LOL Hell, his hair never looked greasy when it wasn't styled. A bit unmanageable and flat, but never greasy.

Oh, and "rofl" and "lol" have been around since the inception of the internet and since I've been online, which was in 1995. You do the math.

But speaking of the 4th movie, Rupert was clearly near the height he's listed at here in that movie. He was taller than Maggie Smith by a bit. Of course, I don't know how tall she is, but she towered over Dan and Rupert was taller than her by a little bit.

Anonymous says on 11/Mar/08
I have a question, would you need a comma after the word sense in your last comment or could you do without one?

Evanna says on 11/Mar/08
An(na)nymous, you shouldn't drink before you post your comments:
a) they make no sense, and are in no way height-related;
b) you're underage.

Anonymous says on 11/Mar/08
Well, I mean, come on, you old folk are pretty hip; "rofl" and "lol", now those words are definitely not so 10 years ago....Oh, and I quote you, "But repulsive? Ugly? Not really hari adjectives"..."repulsive and disgusting were words we used back in the day...usually referring to those who had disturbingly greasy hair..." You described hair nevertheless....dude, rupert's hair may have been professionally styled on the set, but the fact is, it was so long that it still looked greasy. Look at it closely the next time you see the movie, which will probably be never.

umad80 says on 11/Mar/08
rofl Evanna. Remember, she's so young that the wording of "ugly" towards hair is probably the new, hip thing and us old folk just don't know that. Repulsive and disgusting were the words we used back in the day. Usually referring to those who had disturbingly greasy hair not hair that was long and professionally styled on set all the time. lol

I was hoping Rupert would attend the Empire Awards solely based on the fact that I wanted to see him standing next to others. LOL

Anonymous says on 10/Mar/08
um, hair can be called ugly quite easily, i've heard it said many times, probably because ugly's definition is "unpleasant or repulsive, esp. in appearance". hair is, obviously, an appearance, so i think that adjective would work well and that's why people often times use it hehe, silly. evanna has the same first name as evanna lynch, who plays luna lovegood, a character in the harry potter series. and, btw, i find it funny that people are saying that a ren is freaking out about hair....i've heard people say that rupert's hair was "quite ugly" in the fourth movie; it was an "oily mess". sycqwa. shangren. however, when that boy got his hair cut for the fourth movie, he became a full-fledged hottie, i was moved to the dark side....he's also 5'9" imo

Evanna says on 10/Mar/08
Rob should build a new website, Celebhairs.com, where freaks like Anna could discuss "repulsive" hairdos.

umad80 says on 10/Mar/08
How can his hair be "ugly"? That makes absolutely no sense. Especially considering all the comments about how *styled* his hair was. Not like it was an oily mess. I can understand, "The style wasn't fitting." Or "The long hair was terrible." But repulsive? Ugly? Not really hair adjectives.

Been reading a lot of "Rupert looks tall" comments lately from people who have seen him. Need. New. Pics! Gotta see what's going on...

Anonymous says on 9/Mar/08
Well, it was, no one is going to deny that. He's a hottie in the fifth movie, but I just have never got over that ugliness that was his hair in the fourth one; what were the make-up artists thinking.....?

Evanna says on 4/Mar/08
An(na)nymous, you're the repulsive one...

Anonymous says on 4/Mar/08
anon-a-mouse, are you tripping? He may have been hot in the fifth movie, but the 4th movie hairstyle was absolutely repulsive....how could you say such a thing and how depressing for you.....i'm sorry. And 5'6" is ridiculous, Rupert is easily 5'8", but have you seen his bro James? HE IS HUGE!!?!?!

umad80 says on 2/Mar/08
OMG Seriously. LOL We know that Dan and Emma are both 5'5" or close enough to it, and Rupert is way taller than them. Even though I don't agree with Rob's estimate, I would argue 5'7.75" before I would say anything less.

Evanna says on 29/Feb/08
Jonathan Spurr says on 28/Feb/08
5 ft 6 168cm

Yeah, right. Maybe four years ago.

Jonathan Spurr says on 28/Feb/08
5 ft 6 168cm

anonamous says on 9/Feb/08
omg!!! im 3/4 in. taller than him. hes soooooooo hot . especially in the 4th movie

Temeraire says on 5/Feb/08
Does anyone know the birthdates of his sisters?
I know that his younger {and only} brother James is born on November 8,1990 but l haven't a clue when his sisters are born expect for their birthyear wich is {in chronogically order} Georgina is born in 1993,Samantha is born in 1996} and Charlotte is born in 1999.
Rupert turns 20 in seven months,James turns 18 in ten months,Georgina turns 15
sometime this year,Samantha turns 12 sometime this year and Charlotte turns 9 sometime this year.
So if anyone knows l appreciate if you can tell me.

umad80 says on 31/Jan/08
Oh, I don't have a problem with Rob not changing his mind. It's his site, his belief. This is all in fun. He can believe Rupert is 5'6" for all I care. :P But don't worry Rob, one day I'll prove who is right in this. ;) Of course, my luck, I'll be completely wrong. LOL

Rae says on 31/Jan/08
Anonymous said "Just saying. I'd say 5'6" for Dan and 5'8" for Rupert."

no way. evryone knows dan is 5'5 (they soooo aded the .5) and that he wears LIFTS!

Anonymous says on 30/Jan/08
Ehm, I highly doubt that 80. The more likely is Rob proving himself right, but he does not really care enough to do so, which, again, is quite understandable....change your thinking or, to be completely reasonable, leave. Rob's not going to change anytime soon.

umad80 says on 29/Jan/08
LOL I didn't expect you to ever do that... I wouldn't shut down a popular site either! But I swear, one day I'm going to prove to you I'm right. Or maybe you'll prove to me you're right. Either way, one day it'll happen... ;)

Anonymous says on 28/Jan/08
Joking slightly, seeing as this site has been an obvious succes, but let's be totally honest Rob, you have no future of changing HP actors' heights, do you? Case in point, umad80's consistant visiting of this website. She obviously advocates a 5'8"-5'10" listing for Rupert and has even seen the trio in person, furthermore Rupert, in person, against Craig Ferg., yet you have not upgraded him a mere .25", which, in reality, is a quite small amount. Yes, it is a massive amount on this site and understandably so, but.....it's just funny that some pursue. And umad has a good point, Rupert looks easily 5'8"-5'8.5", however, some of her reasoning makes little sense. For example, Dan 5'5" and Rupert 5'9"? That difference is clearly not 4 inches, in the HP films Dan looks barely shorter than Rupert and at the ceremony and premieres, Rupert has got little over him. Just saying. I'd say 5'6" for Dan and 5'8" for Rupert.

Anonymous says on 27/Jan/08
Anna and umad80, it's a proven fact that Rob does not care....I would most definitely not be surprised if this entire site closed down soon....

umad80 says on 19/Jan/08
Oh God Rob, is you know who back? God, 5'7" for Emma... honestly. That was proven wrong when she and JKR attended an event together. And Dan admitted that he was only 5'5" back in July.

But I've shown dozens of video from the ceremony. I was even there! And yet, it falls on deaf ears. It's quite obvious that Rupert is not barely 3 inches taller than Dan. It's obvious that he is over 3". How many? I still say he's quite possibly around 5'9" and the ceremony proves that.

Anonymous says on 18/Jan/08
I think Rupert is a strong 5'8", possibly 5'8.5" or 5'9", I just think that Rob will, for some reason, never upgrade him. Nonetheless, the three of us can agree and thus, be eternally satisfied. As for Dan, he has been looking taller lately, a strong 5'6" if not close to 5'7". Emma looks about his height, although she looks taller than him in that barefoot clip. I don't know, it's quite a weird angle, but when the trio attend an event soon (BAFTAs most likely, does anyone know when those are?) we'll see what's up.

Anna says on 17/Jan/08
You guys should check this out: Click Here

And they're all barefoot so... is Dan shorter than 5,5 or is Rupert taller than 5,7.75? These heights aren't right.

umad80 says on 17/Jan/08
Rupert has what they tend to consider hazel eyes, I believe. If that's not the right one, his eye colors change with the scenery in the background. This is why it's such a major misconception of his eye color. I've seen photos where one eye is one color and the other is another eye color. Case in point: Click Here Or this gray background makes his eye color look even different: Click Here Or how the lighting from this camera not only changes his eye color, but shows off how red his hair is: Click Here Even this brown background makes his eyes an interesting greenish color: Click Here And as you can see, this is why people think he has green eyes: Click Here - And there are plenty of pictures that show the gray/blue thing too.

And I still maintain he's 5'9". (Just to keep this on height. LOL)

Anonymous says on 16/Jan/08
Apparently umad's rambling has not affect on dear Rob.

Anonymous says on 16/Jan/08
His eyes do indeed seem more blue-gray, I don't really know though, I've not looked closely at that topic? And, yes, Dan's eyes certainly are more dark and, let me note this, amazingly gorgeous. Wow, they are the best eyes I have ever seen. And the thing that I find absolutely hillarious in this whole thing is the fact that Rob has not updated Rupert to even 5'8",,,,funny.

DG says on 16/Jan/08
I know this site preferably deals with the physical aspects of the 'Potter' trio,
such as their height and etc but l just wanted to point out another aspect of their features,such as their eye colour.
I know that Emma has dirty blonde/dark blonde hair,wich she dyes brown for her role as Hermione and that Daniel has brown hair and blue whlie Rupert has red hair but what many people seem to disagree is what color is his eyes are.
Some people say that he has blue eyes {wich is common amongst redheads} whlie
others say that he has green eyes and then there are some who say that he has bluish-green eyes.
I personally think that he has blue-gray eyes {like my wife and daughter have}
Because if you look at his pictures you can see that his eyecolor is blue-gray
rather than his co-star Daniel's own blue eyes wich is considerably darker than
blue-gray wich is a lighter 'color'.
Forgive me if my ramblings don't make sense as English is not my first language.

umad80 says on 10/Jan/08
You guys need to remember that Dan a) has dogey shows, b) has very flattering height hairstyle and c) always stands at attention while Rupert always wears cons and tends to lean or slouch. These are all contributing factors to the difference in height. Also Dan is only 5'5" but that in no way makes Rupert only 5'7". But around 5'9" is quite obvious to most everyone who has encountered him.

Sam says on 6/Jan/08
he must only be 5'8. i acually thought he'd be taller but i guess compared to danial whos like 5'6 hes not that much taller. i'm saying 5'8 for sure.

diana says on 5/Jan/08
5'9 is being too nice
he just looks too close in height to dan radcliffe
im going to say probably 5'8

Anonymous says on 30/Dec/07
Rupert is definitely in the 5'9" range. I've heard from reliable people that at Tribeca, at least a year and a half ago, Laura Linney was in heels. Laura Linney is 5'7" and would be 5'9" in heels. If you look at pictures you can clearly see that Rupert is an inch shorter with a lean. So if he was standing straight he'd most likely be the exact same height, or maybe around a half inch shorter.

A couple of pictures. In most of these Rupert is obviously leaning. Click Here Click Here Click Here

It's so freakin' obvious that Rupert is not the height he is listed here. And yes, it's obvious he is not 5'10". But 5'9" is a very strong possibility.

Nik says on 28/Dec/07
I think 5-8 is a little too short and 5-10 is too tall. I think he's about 5-9

RGs Girl says on 26/Dec/07
Backtracking a bit here, but I think Rupert has most definitely grown since that picture with the twins. If you look also, they could all stand up a bit straighter. Plus, you'd have to discredit their hair, being that its on the frizzy side and a little spiked up. I would say Rupert is most definitely no less than 5'8"

Chris says on 17/Dec/07
I've been a Rupert fan forever and Rupert is definitely between 5'8" and 5'10". He's definitely not 5'7"

shay says on 7/Dec/07
id say 5ft8 and a bit

Ben says on 6/Dec/07
You know..you should just write his height as 5ft8,because he might be more than 5ft8 so its not always that good that you changes peoples heights

umad80 says on 4/Dec/07
I've noticed he tends to lose a little bit of weight when we know he is filming a new HP movie. But this time it seems to be a LOT. For me to really take notice, it had to be significant. Reminds me of the BAFTAs back last year, he seemed skinner. I guess we'll see obviously.

Well, at least we know that Matt Lewis' is at least 6' and Rupert standing next to him at the NMAs showed that he is a strong 5'8" and imo above that.

Evanna says on 4/Dec/07
Yes I've seen the pictures from the fundraising event, but I don't think that he's grown, only lost some weight, which makes him look taller. His weight tends to fluctuate quite a bit.

umad80 says on 3/Dec/07
I don't think he will either, even if someone sends him pics. Guess he'll just have to see him in person. :P Did you see the new pics of Rupert? I know I can't possibly know the heights of the people in the pics with him since they're just fans, but he looks like he could have possibly grown. (I know he's 19, but guys can and do grow beyond 18...)

Oh well, I still maintain 5'9" based on what I've seen in person and all the pics and video at the HWF ceremony when they're barefoot.

Evanna says on 2/Dec/07
umad80 dunno if you've noticed, Rob's downgraded Greg Grunberg to 6'1" after seeing him in person I think. Even so, Grunberg only looks about 4" taller than Grint in LA pics below. But I'm thinking of giving up my campaign here, obviously Rob's got no intention of upgrading Grint anytime soon.

umad80 says on 28/Nov/07
I realize that, but I think you're asking an awful lot in that scenario for Rupert and the twins. Especially considering there are numerous pics of Rupert with the twins in which they both are standing quite well and Rupert is always up around the nose area. It's very consistant.

I mean, look at this: Click Here - Yes, Rupert appears to only be about a quater inch taller than Emma, but when you look at the fact that his head is bended down and Emma is clearly lifting herself up to get her arm around Rupert, you'd have to admit there is no way for Rupert to be anything under 5'8".

And that video I posted clearly showed that there is more than almost 3" between Rupert and Dan in their barefeet.

umad80 says on 27/Nov/07
Yeah Evanna, and if you look, Rupert's head is tiltled towards said twin. And his body is leaning too, so he'd be just right at the tip of the nose or probably just above it if standing completely straight. And as I said, these photos are always taken at the beginning of filming, so Rupert wasn't even 18 at the time. There is always the chance of growing since then. But either way, Rupert being anything under 5'8" is laughable. Really, how can anyone look at the video of him and Dan - even see that Dan pushes himself up to appear taller - and still say Rupert is nowhere above 5'8"?

I just don't get why we have comparison photos showing that a 5'8" person would be middle of the chin on a 6'3.5" person, but for Rupert and the twins, it's barely 5'8" when he comes up to their nose. :P

Evanna says on 27/Nov/07
Sorry Rob I forgot to answer your last post. Er, what tilt?! Unlike his brother, the twin on the left isn't tilting his head at all Click Here I really can't see more than 6-6.5" difference there. Even if it was 7" (which it isn't), that would put Grint at 5'8" flat, not 5'7.75", right?

umad80 says on 21/Nov/07
I just don't see how you can keep a straight face and say that Rupert is barely 3" taller than the 5'5" Dan. Can you honestly look at this video and not say that even 5'8" is accurate? Click Here - The only time it does look even remotely accurate is when they're standing next to each other and Dan has his arm around Rupert, but you can clearly see that Dan is lifting himself up. He is trying his best to make himself look taller. But when they're standing regular and all, you can see a significant difference between Rupert and Dan.

Evanna says on 21/Nov/07
Another case study, this model is much better looking than Orlando ;) Click Here (Sorry I didn't know how to link your original pic Rob, I'm bad with tiny urls!)
See what I mean? 6" difference that is between Grint and the brothers, or 6.5" max. Not to mention your pic with Devon Murray, he's actually just under your nose, but you claim that there's only 6" difference.

umad80 says on 21/Nov/07
Oh, I have Evanna. And I've posted several pictures that prove Rupert is nothing under 5'8" and he is very much showing signs of being 5'9". I think it's pretty obvious that both Dan and Emma are around 5'5" if not on the mark entirely, and Rupert was consistantly 4" taller than them at the ceremony with their shoes off. I've posted videos, I've posted different pictures, I've done everything. And what about the photos with Tom? If you're not going to upgrade Rupert, you need to downgrade Tom. Because it was definitely nowhere near an inch difference between them, and we can make an argument that Tom had better shoes. So I kinda have to agree with Evanna here and wonder why you haven't upgraded especially since I was e-mailed by someone who told me they sent a picture into you with them with Rupert to show how tall he is and you haven't even put it up. What's the delay?

Oh, I also want to make note that publicity shots are taken very early on in production. So Rupert and the twins took these photos probably a couple of weeks before they even began filming. Rupert could've grown because he wasn't 18 yet at that point. Also remember that one twin is taller than the other. So you have to take into consideration which one you put him closest to in order to measure. (Sorry, I'm terrible at telling which is which... some people can, but I really can't. lol)

And again, Evanna is right. Not only with your Orlando Bloom thing, but you have a 5'8" person coming to the middle of the mouth on a 6'3.5" person. So Rupert coming anywhere near the nose of either twin does not put him under 5'8". Wouldn't around the top of the upper lip put someone at 5'8" on a 6'3" person? So anywhere near the nose would put them closer to 5'9"? I mean, to tell you the truth, your refusal to put Rupert above 5'8" confuses me when you try to show one thing and do the complete opposite. I mean, no offense Rob, I just don't get why you're so relunctant. lol I really just think Rupert's laid back style makes it look like he can be shorter. I've seen several people on her where you mention that they can look shorter and/or look taller. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that Rupert is just that type of person.

Evanna says on 21/Nov/07
Yeah Rob, but if you draw a line, the top of Grint's head reaches the left twin's nose. According to your Orlando Bloom case study, 7" would be somewhere in the upper lip area, which is not the case. Admittedly the twins have long heads, but still the difference can't be more than 6.5".
It's time you revealed how much Radcliffe's agents are paying you not to upgrade Grint ;)

Evanna says on 20/Nov/07
I'm surprised that umad hasn't posted this one yet: it is a pretty realistic photo of Grint and the twins - equal footwear & similar postures Click Here
Rob, if I'm not mistaken, that's approx. 6 to 6.5" difference between Grint and the brothers, definitely less than full 7". Since the twins are 6'3" that should really put Grint somewhere between 5'8" and 5'9", I can't tell exactly.
And after all the pics of the trio barefoot from the h/f/w ceremony that we've posted here, it should be kinda obvious that Grint has more than 3" advantage over the other two.

umad80 says on 18/Nov/07
You know, I know this isn't the best picture in the world because they're not all standing the same, but can you honestly tell me if everyone stood up straight that Rupert would be barely 3" taller than his co-stars? Click Here - Sorry, but I think it's quite obvious it's a pretty strong 4" difference. Take away Dan's hair (which is spiked up a bit), make Rupert stand a bit straight with his head up, and make Emma stand straight too and it looks like Rupert has quite a few inches on his co-stars. Not just 2.75".

umad80 says on 16/Nov/07
Do you remember shoe difference, Whitney? Because that'll be a big clue considering he always wears cons. It seems to me that everyone who has met him have put him at 5'8" to 5'9" and it's usually 5'9" that seems to be the popular opinion.

There is also this animation: Click Here - if you look, Emma is shorter than Rupert, even in those 3" heels of hers. The only time it looks like she is taller or the same height is when they're moving around, but when they're standing the same and straight, he's definitely taller.

Whitney says on 15/Nov/07
i stood next to him once. i'm 5'7.25" and he's taller than me, if he stood up straight he'd be 5'8 or 5'9

umad80 says on 13/Nov/07
Yeah, I hated those pictures because it did look at times that he couldn't even be 5'6". That's why I knew you couldn't trust them. lol Plus the video proves that Rupert was quite a bit taller than Dan on stage, even with the dress shoes vs. cons.

I still say though that the only way for Rupert to be this exact height of 5'7.75" is for Dan and Emma to be just under 5'4" or just over. And with Rupert looking a legit 4" taller at the ceremony, for him to be 5'7.75" then Dan and Emma would have to be about 5'3.75" and I think that's absolutely rediculous. They're both close to 5'5" even if not entirely at that mark. But you're right, it's Rob's site. He knows what he's doing. hehe

Evanna says on 13/Nov/07
Yeah, those Empire Awards pictures were pretty weird, Grint was practically slumped all the time. The boy should really try to improve his posture, or he'll be hunchbacked soon.
Anyway I have no idea why Rob won't upgrade the redhead, but hey, it's his website, he's an expert on height matters, I guess he knows better than us.

umad80 says on 12/Nov/07
Yeah, he probably isn't a strong 5'5", that I believe. I think Emma is probably a strong 5'5" because she can be a bit taller than him.

Another thing, I know this was a big thing with JK... the empire awards have weird pictures because if you watch this video: Click Here - you'll see that Rupert is several inches taller than Rupert. Probably around 3. It's hard to tell with Dan's hair and shoes. But the pictures that were out, I always said they were odd, and I think this video proves that they were.

Evanna says on 12/Nov/07
Yeah, that's why I posted pics from various websites, taken from different angles, but they all point to the same thing - 4 in. difference that is.
Btw yesterday I watched My Boy Jack (some bits of it, not the whole thing - it's boring), and Radcliffe in military boots was dwarfed by everyone, including 5'6ish Kim Catrall in small heels (she played his mum). He's a VERY weak 5'5"...

umad80 says on 11/Nov/07
I've been here trying to convince Rob that Rupert's at least 4" taller than Dan for months now. He was not 6" shorter than Craig. I was there in person, and even though I wasn't paying attention to height, 6" is a lot not to notice. And the ceremony proves that Rupert was consistantly 4" taller than Dan. There are several angles and whatnot to prove this. Rob admitted that some photos I posted showed 4" "that moment in time" however, they stood like that for quite a few moments to take pictures and there are several other angles to prove it wasn't just that moment in time. Plus, those men around Rupert... they'd all have to be fairly short men. I mean, if you look here: Click Here - that man on Rupert's left looks about 3-3.5" taller than him. When you add the fact that he's got at least an inch in shoe advantage, plus he's more forward, he's only maybe 2" or less taller. Which means he's barely 5'10" and possibly less. Now, we can't possibly know the man's height, but other men seem consistantly around this height in that photo which means except for the few that are obviously quite a bit taller, everyone must be short. Just a thought...

I think I can seriously go for a weak 5'9" or maybe even 5'8.5" because of the photos with Tom Felton... But anything less than 5'8" is kind of laughable at this point.

Evanna says on 11/Nov/07
Just to add some pics from the said ceremony, which should prove that Grint is like 4 in. taller than Radcliffe (although Radcliffe's convenient combination of excellent posture + puffed hair + dodgy shoes usually obscures the fact): Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
And so on. I still can't see Grint at 5'9" because I'm firmly convinced that Radcliffe is slightly under 5'5". But Grint's gotta be at least a strong 5'8".

Evanna says on 11/Nov/07
Dunno if umad80 has already posted these: Grint on Craig Ferguson, right after the hand/foot/wand ceremony. Here's a video Click Here and a couple of screencaps Click Here Click Here Click Here etc. Ferguson is a weak 6'2", plus he's got some shoe advantage (dress shoes vs. cons), but I really can't see Grint being full 6 inches shorter (for example, that's how much Editor Rob is taller than Devon Murray!).
Rob maybe you should really upgrade the ginger?

anonymous no-name says on 28/Oct/07
good video umad80! hadn't seen that one before. I still don't think Rupert is 5'9", but smaller than he's listed? No way. I think he is probably a strong 5'8".