Add a Comment5798 comments
Average Guess (821 Votes)
5ft 10.53in (179.1cm)
KJ said on 10/Jul/05
Well if Brad is 5'11, then why does he feel the need to wear lifts or be listed at tall? I mean he is much taller than most actors in Hollywood
talker said on 9/Jul/05
I agree with stick.Letterman wouldnt have called Pitt "tiny" if the guy was 5'11''.He is not "tiny" but Letterman probably wanted to make fun of the fact that people think he is a lot taller.I think Pitt is around 5'9"maybe a little taller.
servel said on 8/Jul/05
Well, Brad came to mexico city, where i am right now, he looked at best 5.10 1/2 max 5.11.
If you saw the Smiths movie, then you see brad looks shorter next to 5.7 Angelina Jolie with 3inch heels, and pitt supposedly in 1.5 or less shoes.
He looks 5.10.
@bored said on 6/Jul/05
you've obviously never seen a well designed pair of elevator shoes before if think Pitt was wearing "normal dress shoes" on Oprah. Look at any picture of Pitt with Paltrow where he seems 2-3 inches taller, Then you will see one custom pair of elevator shoes after another. But don't look at the pic of them both in "normal sandles" looking the same height, as this may confuse you.
Heightster said on 6/Jul/05
In hollywood, actors often start out shorter and grow taller as their career progresses. Brad Pitt is a prime example who grew from 5-10 to 6-1 after his 30th b-day. Orlando Bloom started out at 5-9 and is now "listed" at 6-0. Jude Law started out at 5-10 or 5-11, jumped up to 6-1/2 and dropped back to 5-11 after his overexposure and flops. Cruise is the one most scrutinized, with Stallone (who claims 6-0 and his been listed as small as 5-7). Yet, Hollywood is the game of illusion and enchantment. Everyone guy wants to be around 6 feet and every woman wants to be between 5-6 and 5-10. In fact women over 6 usually "list" as 5-10 or 5-11 whereas guys anywhere around 5-10 typically "list" 6'+.
bored said on 5/Jul/05
Pitt looks a solid 5'11 at the least. I'd say 5'11 is generally a good height for a man. Im 5'8, and here in Canada average men are generally 2-3 inches taller than me =[. Here http://images.oprah.com/images/tows/slide/200405/20040503/slide_20040503_02_350.jpg is a pic with brad pitt standing beside Oprah whos listed as 5'6.5 on this site. Here http://images.oprah.com/images/tows/slide/200405/20040503/slide_20040503_06_350.jpg is another pic with them sitting down, from which we can see their shoes. Brad's shoes look like standard dress shoes so I'd say between 5'11-6 is an accurate guess.
Bill said on 4/Jul/05
Yes anything over 5-10 is tall, some countries like Holland 5-10 to 5-11 would be average but there is a larger number of very tall people there. just remember 50% of people are average but the majority of the others are within an inch or so of the upper or lower range of average. At 6' only 14% of men are the same height or taller in the USA and around 16% for the UK
Parker said on 3/Jul/05
Dave - All depends where you are standing. If you are on an Island of pygmies, your a giant. If your standing in a town in Holland, your average. In the UK your deemed Tall. Height is relative. It depends on the people around you, so for height definition you can only go off statistics and where you live. If your 5'5" and live in the UK or USA, 95 out of every 100 adult males will be taller than you. That's short. If your 5'8 50 out of every 100 adult males will be taller. That's average. If your 6'3, 95 out of every 100 adult males will be shorter. That's tall.
Dave said on 2/Jul/05
Even if Pitt is 5'11 he'd still be considered relatively tall wouldn't he? i'm 182-183cm (5'11.75-6'0) tall barefoot and am curious to know if that would be considered average height or tall? Where does average height end and considered tall begin? i am a 21 year old male by the way.
Sticks said on 29/Jun/05
The best evidence we've seen of Pitt's real height is the two pictures of him with Paltrow (one barefoot at a pool, one in sandals walking) and the picture of Pitt on stage with Clooney, Damon and Garcia. In every case you can see the footwear and make a decent comparison with someone else. He's very similar in height to Gwyneth Paltrow (less than 1" difference), whose height isn't closely scrutinized. Even when Pitt's clearly wearing lifts, Matt Damon can be taller than him in shoes that are only a little suspicious. That only means that, if Pitt's taller, he sure isn't taller by much. I think that if we have no idea what their footwear is like, picture evidence is almost meaningless.
JUSTMATT said on 29/Jun/05
If you go to www.bradpittfan.com in the section "television" you will find photos of Pitt at Jay Leno Show. There is a photo where Pitt and Leno are face to face and Pitt is 1 inch taller than Leno so if Leno is 5.10 Pitt is 5.11 but if Leno is 5.11 Pitt is 6. Anyway later I noticed another photos where we can see Pitt shoes...in my opinion they are very suspicious, they are boots and maybe they have lifts inside...what do you think?
FASULO said on 29/Jun/05
I would say that all this debate on Pitt is fantastic.This man can appear everywhere with most various heights for every single occasion,in every single place.I think he is really a god.Probably really a new Achilles in Hollywood with his "magic boots"...
Mr. R said on 28/Jun/05
Chris, this is a very important picture. Of course we can't see shoes, but Schwimmer has been listed at 6-2 since he hit it big. I saw an old Saturday Night Live show with Schwimmer doing a sketch with Will Farrell in an elevator. It seems to be commonly acceptable that Farrell is pretty much the 6-3 he claims to be. Standing shoulder to shoulder, Schwimmer is about 2 inches shorter than Farrell, which means that he is really 6-1 at best. If the shoes in your pic are equal, that puts Brad about 5-10.5
JUSTMATT said on 28/Jun/05
PITT THE NEVERENDING HEIGHT'S STORY...You know guys...sometimes Pitt seems a real 6.1 guy! Look on www.gettyimages.com his photos with Jim Carrey. Carrey is 6.2 so with shoes probably 6.3 or 190 cm. In all tis photos Pitt is no more than 1 inch shorter than Carrey so 188 cm with shoes on!!! Know my question for you Rob and for everybody is: could a boy who is only 180 cm (someone says 5.10!!)be the same height of 187-188 Carrey even if he wears lifts in his shoes? My answer is that or Carrey isn't 187 or Pitt is a real 183 cm....
J. said on 28/Jun/05
Again ... judging an actor's height by television is very risky in terms of accuracy. Anyhow, that picture is hilarious and brings the mind the comments Mr. LeBlanc made to Katie Couric which are posted on his height page on this site. He says he has a 'short complex' because his two 'Friends' co-stars are an inch or two taller than him. Huh?!?! How the hell do anyone feel short because someone's a mere 1 or 2 inches taller than you? It's just the Hollywood way, I guess, to tell a blantant lie.
I think when he says this BS 5'10.5" he really means 5'8.5" or lower, since it is common for the Hollywood folk to add 2 inches on to their height and 2 inches off of their age. (Also Perry and Schwimmer aren't that tall so why would a nearly 5'11" guy feel short next to them?!- There's obviously a lie being told).
said on 28/Jun/05
LeBlanc 179...JOKE OF THE DAY!!!!! the guy ain't taller than 5'9 175 cm max!![Editor Rob: I'll give you Joke of the Week too: I am going to INCREASE leBlanc to his proper height of 184cm. This guy is EASILY bigger than 6ft Elle McPherson. Remember the motto...publicity shots can't always be trusted.]
Mr. R said on 27/Jun/05
Raj, Letterman did make that comment in his usual smart alecky way. I watched the show when it aired. It was his way of flirting with Julia Roberts, who was dating 6-2 Benjamin Bratt at the time.
Viper452 said on 24/Jun/05
does Anyone know If 6 foot Ladders are really 6 feet?? Maybe we could measure the stars with a Ladder on Talk shows. Though Im 6-2 And I seem to be 4-5 inches then the ladder
kJ said on 23/Jun/05
Well Dave is 6'2. Which is tall and probably even taller in hollywood
FASULO said on 23/Jun/05
I don't think Pitt-Paltrow pic is a wonderful one to evaluate.Because they are walking(Pitt in a very wide step)and Paltrow is behind him.However all that I said doesn't justify +1 inch of difference between them.In all cases I think Pitt is slightly under 5'11"
sticks said on 22/Jun/05
Julia Roberts on Letterman promoting the Mexican:
Dave: I will take them all out if you want. You know I'm just teasing you.
Julia: Oh my God, let's talk about The Mexican. You said the first question was going to be about the tiny, tiny man.
--break in my copy, they look at a movie clip--
Dave: Whenever March 2 is and it's gonna be a huge movie because it's entertaining and it has you in it of course and Brad Pitt.
Julia: What's this thing, I'm just a little confused I guess would be the best word. What's with the "tiny" I don't understand that.
Dave: I'm 6'2". That's all I'm saying.
Julia: No! No!
Dave: To me that's what guys ought to be ......6', 6'2", right in there. That's all I'm saying.
Julia: OK, well, Benjamin's 6'2".
Dave: Exactly. Exactly. But you spent the summer with Brad Pitt making your movie, how tall is that guy?
Julia: He's Brad Pitt; he measures right up.
Dave: How many crates was he sitting on in that shot that we saw then. [Julia stands up as though to fight Dave]
Dave: God bless you. You know I think the world of you.
It's dropped down the web's memory hole but I copied some of it a long time ago. Let's see if it lasts. Julia Roberts could easily defend a 5'11"-ish Brad Pitt by saying he was 6'. Even if he were around 5'10", she could say he was around 6'. And why would David Letterman call the guy "tiny" in the first place if he was average height or more? Take Occam's razor to the problem: he's short and they both know it. Is there another plausible explanation?
sticks said on 22/Jun/05
Paltrow is not 5cm shorter than Jude Law in that picture. A line parallel to the horizontal lines on the wall makes it clear that they're at the same height. She's reducing her height by bending a knee and dropping her hip, arching her back and sticking out her neck, techniques she must have honed in her relationship with the "tiny sex maniac". It's hard to spot and she does the same thing in that picture where she's in the converse all-stars and Pitt's in boots. I think the difference in shoes gives her about a 4cm advantage (picture the difference in the height of their ankles) and she takes most or all of that away with her make-the-man-tall tricks. They're at the same height in the picture and I bet they're within an inch of eachother barefoot.
said on 22/Jun/05
Ok STICKS but one thing is sure: even if Jude Law was 183 cm and with shoes probably 186-187 then Gwyneth Paltrow is never 177 because she has at least 7-8 cm heels but she is still 5 cm shorter than Law. If she was 177 then 177+8 cm heels=185cm! In my opinion Paltrow is 173 cm tall and this only if Law is 183 because if he is shorter then also Paltrow is a lot shorter than 177. What do you think Editor Rob?[Editor Rob: maybe in some of the pics from that series she isn't standing greatly. There's one pic where both their postures look better and considering the angle of the photo the difference isn't that great...but yes her heels vs his heels still suggests if Paltrow is the current height of 177 then Law may well be the original 182 i gave him ;) Of course you can go back 6 years and find both of them not with the best posture and maybe wonder about his footwear. Also see Law beside not quite 6ft daniel craig...]
sticks said on 22/Jun/05
JUSTMATT: Yeah, I tried that when the picture got posted last week, but it's too dependent on a guess that the pattern's height is some sensible number of cm. If you try to figure out the width of those rectangles, you'll find that it's not a nice integer, which makes a so-so idea pretty weak. I'm not saying it's wrong, but if the height has to be some multiple of 5 (which is why you say it's 40 and not 38 or 41) then why wouldn't the width be the same, e.g., 45cm? The length to the width ratio is 6:7 and if you used 2.5cm as one unit then Law's height in shoes comes out to just over 5'7". If you said an inch is one unit then his height in shoes is just over 5'8". It's too arbitrary to use as an argument.
Scott said on 22/Jun/05
The Gwyneth and Brad in sandals picture is very interesting, as there is very little difference. It is especially interesting when compared with this pic of no more than 5'11 Jude Law next to well heeled Gwyneth:
I imagine that barefoot there is a very real possibility that Brad is no more than 178-179cm max. A case of a perfectly acceptable height that has been exaggerated as the years have gone by and Brad has felt compelled to live up to the expectation with lifts. Very surprsing really. I imagine the debate will continue for years though ...
Anonymous said on 22/Jun/05
Why the continued debate??? Finally...a picture of Pitt without elevator shoes!!! He's in sandles, as is Paltrow and they are the exact same height (give or take a 1/2 inch for stride). Gweneth is listed as 5'9" to 5'10" everywhere. So how the hell could Pitt be 5'11" to 6'1" without his "special shoes"????? C'mon guys get off Pitt's jock already and stop buying the hype. Most elevator shoes add an average of 3 inches to barefoot height. This is why Pitt appears 6" to 6'1" in most public appearences and films. Look again: http://www.bradpittfan.com/pics/z058a.jpg
delfonic said on 21/Jun/05
Why the continued debate??? Finally...a picture of Pitt without elevator shoes!!! He's in sandles, as is Paltrow and they are the exact same height (give or take a 1/2 inch for stride). Gweneth is listed as 5'9" to 5'10" everywhere. So how the hell could Pitt be 5'11" to 6'1" without his "special shoes"????? C'mon guys get off Pitt's jock already and stop buying the hype. Most elevator shoes add an average of 3 inches to barefoot height. This is why Pitt appears 6" to 6'1" in most public appearences and films.
MD said on 21/Jun/05
Let's not forget that Pitt is (when not playing a role that requires him to bulk up) 159 pounds (which may be stretching it, too when you have to stick with 159 and not just round up to 160). With his build, he doesn't look to be anything over 5'10".
Gotxo said on 21/Jun/05
The Spanish from Spain are CAUCASIAN, pretty similar to Italian, Portuguese & French. The Spanish from South America are mostly what the Americans call Red Men,related to Asiatics, thought some are from European inmigrant origin.
The avg height for youngs is 5'10 & for >30 = 176-177cm.
I have serious reasons to think the Americans smaller than that.
But no matter, all humans has the same grothw potential (except some African tribes with hormonal problems as pygmees). The only diff is the INCOME, wich grants a better health, that implies more growth. That may explain black lower
J.J said on 21/Jun/05
Watched (part of) Interview with the vampire yesterday and it would seem to me this was before Brad started using lifts - he is definitely not 6' in that.
5'11" is spot on I'm pretty sure now
Joe said on 20/Jun/05
Don't really know where to post this, seems like a lot of people visit Pitt's page. What is considered average height for a male? I've read 5'9/5'10. What have you all heard?
Anonymous said on 20/Jun/05
This picture proves that Pitt cant be any shorter than 5'10.5" and i think he is 5'11".Roberts is about 5'8" and she is wearing 3-4" heels. This would make her 5'11" -6'. Pitt is still taller than her at about 1.5" so that would make him 6'0.5"- 6'1.5". Sutract 1.5" for his heels on his boots. You are left with 5'11" - 6" .
Chris said on 20/Jun/05
This proofs that Brad is 5'11''.
On the other hand, maybe he is 5'10''. I honestly don
sticks said on 19/Jun/05
dmeyer, how can you conclude that Damon is taller than Clooney from the picture on the stage and avoid the conclusion that he's taller than Pitt? Look at Pitt's right foot. Other than centaurs, who has a leg that looks like that? Guys wearing lifts. Face it: whatever they had in their shoes that night made Damon taller, and Damon's ankles look more natural than Pitt's.
MHouillon, are you sure it's just 'embarassing' and not 'blasphemous'? What makes you so sure he's not under 5'10"? Why would Duchovny say he's shorter than he really is? Apparently Adam Brody said Pitt's 5'10" on the Tonight Show. Do you think Brody's rounding Pitt's height down to irritate a powerful Hollywood star?
MHouillon said on 19/Jun/05
Brad Pitt is 181cm-182cm, David Duchovny is 184cm-185cm. Saying Brad is 5'10" or less is embarassing.
dmeyer said on 19/Jun/05
it is weird because i met jerry weintraub and he is aleast 6'2'' and brad is taller than him so brad is sometimes 189 cm but i also met freeman who is 6'3'' and pitt looked 3'' shorter i guess pitt is the only men to grow after 30 years old
dmeyer said on 19/Jun/05
rob i just saw the picture from pitt garcia clooney damon damon is taller than clooney it is weird because in ocean 11 and 12 damon look 2 inches shorter than clooney and 3 inches shorter than pitt in this pic clooney have weird looking shoes so damon is not as short as i thaught he is atleast 179 cm pitt could be wearing elevator but it is dificult to say i saw a lot of pics of clooney and he alwais hane a minimum of 4 cm heels pitt is a mistery but he is no taller than 6'1
Anonymous said on 19/Jun/05
On the Duchovny-Pitt picture: Don't you think Pitt, who wouldn't wear sandals in Troy or take off his shoes on the set, would be wearing lifts? Sure, there's a difference of 2" in the picture. But for every extra bit of lift beyond whatever Duchovny's getting, Pitt's that much further under 5'10". If Duchovny's in 1" soles and Pitt's got a 1" lift, Pitt's 5'9".
Monty said on 18/Jun/05
"5'11" Brad Pitt with 6'0 David Duchovny http://www.bradpittfan.com/pics/mka024b.jpg. Brad looks two inches shorter then David here plus David is slouching.
sticks said on 18/Jun/05
JUSTMATT: 1. If you figure out the difference in distance from the camera you'll find that it's very small and the consequences to Pitt's apparent height are much smaller (I get less than 2cm).
2. The Webber pictures can be explained by a difference in the amount of lift in their shoes.
3. James saw Pitt at about 183cm, not 185-186cm. For every inch of lift over the standard 1" sole, Pitt is another inch below 5'11". That means that if Pitt had 2" lifts in, he would be 175-176cm barefoot, 5'9" or a bit more.
4. I admire the faith you and rick have in the honesty of a male actor reporting his height.
delfonic said on 18/Jun/05
Yeah rick, why don't we trust him? It's not like actors have ever been known to lie about thier height, so I guess he must be 5' 11". More accurately 5' 11" in normal shoes, just under 6' 1" in his special shoes and about 5' 10" barefoot. If you had filled out an audition form or acting resume before, you would know few people actually put their "barefoot" height on these forms. Pitt's no dummy, even in 1987, he knew enough about the game to round up his height an inch.
J. said on 11/Jun/05
Wow, those comments that you posted Rob just shows how warped and often inaccurate the media is. It's amazing how a guy who is under 6 feet suddenly becomes described as being so "tall" ... it just goes to show that Hollywood (and the media) do live in a illusionary dream world where the truth becomes what they WANT it to be.
[Editor Rob: Yes, there are countless magazines that seem to adorn Pitt with as many positive words without making the reader feel sick, well, because he sells....a couple more: GQ, "Tall", Vanity Fair: "As tall and lean as a deer rifle" and LIAM NEESON in 2005: "I saw Clint Eastwood out in LA last week, and he's definitely 6ft 3in. And Pacino's small, but he's huge on screen. I have met Tom, and I guess he is small, but I never looked at him and thought, 'Gosh, you're small'. Colin Farrell is quite a tall man. Brad Pitt's quite tall". Maybe Neeson forgot to look at Colin's boots. That comment nearly sounds as bad as CinemaConfidential writing: "Wilson, a tall, blonde actor"...yes that is 'Owen Wilson'...who has entered tall man territory...I expect very soon they'll be writing 'Jackie the GIANT Chan'!]
RT said on 11/Jun/05
has brad actually said himself that he's 6"1?? a lot of people seem to assume that he's that height, for whatever reason, and with clooney's comment it seemed to confirm it. but if brad himself wrote 5"11 in '87 then i think thats the correct height. in that pic with jen he seriously doesnt look taller than 5"10 even!
[Editor Rob: unfortunately arguing over a cm with Pitt still won't change how he is perceived. Ask a crowd Pitt's height and I would guess the majority would say he is tall, 'at least 6ft'. Magazines too often comment on Pitt's stature. Vanity Fair wrote that "He is tall and lean" and in another issue that "Tall and limber, Pitt still looks boyish". Esquire magazine says "beside him, though, you realize how incredibly tall he is, one of the few very tall men who doesn
Mr. R said on 28/Apr/05
As I said, I think that Mr. Pitt is about 5-11, based on my eyewitness account, and other pics I've seen. However, what's more interesting to me is why the Pitt height has caused so much interest, similar to the Cruise height. From my perspective, it seems men frequent this site more than women, and height is the ultimate arbiter of masculine endeavor. Since we live by social comparison, men are always comparing ourselves with other men - especially famous rich men who are revered for their talent, looks, money, and fame. Do we feel more equal if we discover that these societal icons are average in size like us? Height is very arbitrary - you can't purchase it at least in non-lift form. I have to admit, every time I meet a celebrity and I discover that I am taller than them, probably 75% of the time, I feel a rush of superiority. They may have money, fame, women, cars, houses etc, but damn you Tom Cruise, you will always be shorter than me! I'm sorry, but the professor and social scientist in me had to comment on this phenomenon. Any thoughts?
[Editor Rob: You pretty much hit the nail on the head! There is no denying male ego when it comes to height. The 'big is good' I think gets built into us from early age...I would say that in terms of women, I think Men would prefer if they weren't taller ;) Of course, you also have the teenybopper syndrome. I do let a lot of the comments go through as many do have very good points about some stars actually being taller than you'd think, but more often than not I am forced to delete stuff along the lines of "I met hilary duff and she was like super taller than me..I'm like 5ft 3 and she was like 5ft 8 at least!"]
Mr. R said on 28/Apr/05
Okay, I've stayed out of this for awhile, but I'd like to join in on the fun. I saw Brad and Jen several years ago in Hollywood on Oscar night. They were leaving Elton John's party, and their limo pulled in front of me. I saw them get in, and while I could not stand behind him for a good measurement, he seemed to be about 6 foot to me. Of course, who knows what's in his footwear?
When he hit big with Thelma and Louise, he was touted as a strong six-footer. But if I am correct, there are few, if any, scenes of him standing with Geena Davis(6 foot), and when there are, he is wearing cowboy boots. One article, I think it was Vanity Fair, referred to him as very tall, at least six feet, and others used this same six foot mark to describe this new star. I'm a little surprised to hear Clooney referring to Pitt as very tall, cause in the movie Ocean's Eleven, there only seems to be an inch between them, which suggests maybe that maybe Clooney has a personal relationship with "the lift fairy".
From what I've seen in person, he is more than 5-10, but not quite 6 foot, anything in the 5-11 range is probably close.
said on 25/Mar/05
In a photo of Brad Pitt and Gwenith Paltrow barefeet and face to face, it shows that pitt is truly in the 5'9 to 5'10.5 range at best. Although his head is cocked (so their noses don't bump when they kiss), it's obvious that they're both standing straight up and their shoulders are the exact same height. The only way he could be taller is from the shoulders up (which is doubtful considering gwenith's giraffe like neck). But giving him the benefit of the doubt, he has a half inch on her at best with his head uncocked. Assuming she is the 5'9 or 5'10 she's usually listed as, pitt is 5'10.5 max.
His thin frame, great posture and "special shoes" at any and all public appearences keep everyone fooled. I have never seen him in a pair of shoes/boots that didn't have an almost two inch heel on them and a high cut on the ankle to provide plenty of room for an at least one inch extra lift on the inside of the shoe/boot. Only when he is far from the limelight will he be caught in normal shoes or sandles. These are the occasions where average people have met him and claim he is 5'9 to 5'10.[Editor Rob: Here is the Picture delphonic refers too]
said on 22/Feb/05
I looked for the old stat sheet of Brad's and found it. He stated his height as 5ft 11 back in 1987 when he was breaking through. Brad writes himself as 5ft 11
new-guy said on 14/Feb/05
Brad Pitt is not 60 I met him this summer and he is shorter than me. im 605, id say hes about 59 or 10