How tall is Daniel Craig - Page 4

Add a Comment864 comments

Average Guess (384 Votes)
5ft 9.96in (177.7cm)
antron said on 4/Oct/06
he's 5'10" or 5'11", but definitely not scrawny as hell as someone said earlier. It was reported that he actually had to lose a bit because he was too muscular. See here(filming Casino Royale):
Click Here
amy said on 28/Sep/06
I think Daniel Craig is so sexy. From his pictures with Nicole, I would have to say he's at least 6 feet tall.
John R said on 14/Sep/06
You should check out the pics with Nicole Kidman. He does appear to be 6
Jon said on 9/Sep/06
I don't know anything about this guy, but i do know a friend I know through training, is now his 'official' stunt double (and now 'living it up'!!) and he is only about 5'9''
Tom said on 8/Sep/06
In Road to Perdition, Craig looks shorter than Hanks (5'11") by an inch or so, but there may have been a point to that. Honestly, I was very surprised when he was chosen to be bond--I thought 6'+ was a requirement.
anonymous2 said on 29/Aug/06
re MMKs pic, Paltrow is listed at 175cm but it's becoming clear she is more like 171cm. going from that pic Craig is likely about 177cm.
Viper652 said on 26/Aug/06
I dont think they would hire him as Bond If he was a wooden actor. If anything they would hire him on acting skills alone since he doesnt look your typical Bond.
Glenn said on 26/Aug/06
I agree that he is that tall.I just thought he was rude to me and should handle fans better.
Terry said on 25/Aug/06
He is actually 5'11.5" the exact same height as me. I have met him through acting and he is an incredibly nice guy. He just hates publicity and photos outside of his job, as would you guys if you had to put up with some of the things he has. He's not wooden at all I think he's a superb actor and he is renowned throughout the acting community in the UK.
bob said on 15/Aug/06
he is around 5'9 or less without his lifts. He is a horrbily wooden actor with the chrisma of a wooden post and as far as Eva Green goes she is just ...... who needs to change the way she treats bond fans. I am currently working on my second movie and screwups like this make me sick. I would have rather seen Eric Bana, Clive Owen, Collin Farrel or even Ben Affleck playing Bond before this no talented troll was given a shot at the role.
Anonymous said on 11/Aug/06
No way. Look at his pics with Steven Spielberg (who's 2 inches shorter than Mel Bibson). Danial Craig is 5'9".
dmeyer said on 31/Jul/06
nicole has only 3 to 4 cm heels in those shoes so about 6 feet in it so craig does look a solid 5 11 in those pics
Karen said on 31/Jul/06
From photos he looks 5'9 or so. Here is a link to some photos of him on a set with Nicole Kidman (here listed at 5'10). He looks a bit taller than her in this series (lifts?):
Click Here
Glenn said on 21/Jul/06
Gave me a really hard time for the photo OP,and when he did pose with me,his friend,security or whoever he was cut the 2 of us out of the photo when I developed it.thats low.
Ed said on 20/Jul/06
Glenn, what did Craig do to make him an a**hole?
Glenn said on 19/Jul/06
I met him.5-11 and an a**hole.
Ed said on 18/Jul/06
Hard guy to pinpoint, in Munich he looked this height, in Tomb Raider maybe a little shorter, in Road to Perdition shorter, and in Layer Cake 5ft11 sounds about right, maybe more like 5ft10.5. Even if he's 5ft9 he's still a great actor and will make a cool Bond, bringing some grit to the role, unlike Remington Steele.
Alexander-Serbia said on 30/May/06
Ooouu Daniel craig is so small..I was standing near to him on one party in east London..and he was about a
ForensicNYC said on 24/May/06
The new JAMES BOND 007, 5'11" Daniel Craig packs a big gun...(is it still a Walter PPK?)...looks like a 9mm H&K auto...
Click Here
"Honey, have you been through Stallones' closet again?"
Click Here
Now THATS a Walter...
Click Here
Bond always gets THE GIRL....(Lucky!!!)
Click Here
This was how IAN FLEMING envisioned Jimbo to be...
Click Here
Paul said on 21/May/06
Sorry guys but they are billing him at 5'11 because that is the most they can get away with. They couldn't say 6'0. I think he is 1.79m a shade over 5'10.
tomking said on 13/May/06
He is well trained with a good body,respect.He seems also to be not a nice guy, like Glenn said.But we must give him a chance.In his height is 182cm and 78kg.
Ed said on 5/May/06
Concur, he may not look good, he may be a bit short. But the look in his eyes screams Bond.
The Horse of FUNK said on 3/May/06
"[Editor Rob: could have been a lot worse in the past...Sid James coulda been the first Bond...]"

Just imagine Mel Gibson. Yes, he was in the works until they got Brosnan. Not that a guy like Mel, being 5'10, would have any problem... It'd just be hard watching William Wallace, Mad Max, and Martin Riggs running around in a tux.

Oh! Has anyone seen the CR trailer yet? It actually looks very good. I think this guy's going to be a great Bond.
Elio said on 3/May/06
Saw him a quirky low budget British romantic comedy drama. Definately looked 5'11" in that, for what it's worth.
MD said on 3/May/06
What is this build that people keep speaking of? Only very recently has he bulked up. Otherwise, his regular build (thin/skinny) would make him look taller than he really is, not shorter.
dmeyer said on 3/May/06
he might be 5'11 but because of his build he looks 5'9"
Glenn said on 1/May/06
He is 5-11.
Ed said on 30/Apr/06
I think Craig's height is about right, he just looks shorter because he's built.

Brett, dude, chill out. Stop being so uptight about the physical aspects of Bond. The producers were looking for the Bond attitude.

And oh, get a girlfriend, man.

Editor Rob
could have been a lot worse in the past...Sid James coulda been the first Bond...
J.J.F said on 25/Apr/06
This guy scratches 5'11', he's probably 1m79.

I'm curious though as to why American's cannot pronounce his name, it's 'Craig'[kraygh] with a guttoral 'guh' - not 'Creg' as in 'keg'. Nitwits.
MOF said on 31/Mar/06
Look at this picture, Craig is the closest to the camera and looks the same height as Paul Newman.

Click Here
Brett said on 27/Mar/06
I dont think hes petite, I mean hes a slim build, but he carrys a good deal of lean muscle on him, hed win the inaugral bond Bench pressing competition if there was one.
Mr. R said on 24/Mar/06
In this weeks' Entertainment Weekly, Craig is decribed as "not being petite at 5'11" in response to the criticisms of his being the wrong choice for Bond.
funkmonk said on 17/Mar/06
Brett, give the new Bond a couple of years, once he becoms more famous he will also top the 'sexist man alive' charts. It is mainly due to the amount of money a film makes that determines whether its lead acter is 'the sexist man' or whatever rather than the man's actually looks. Money rules the media.
Brett said on 13/Mar/06
J.J.F I think you live in a Dream land, everyone whoes seen him next to Brosnan and Connery claim hes like 3 inches shorter then either of them, claiming this clearly shows you have no idea. Moores acting inadequacies? hes still a classic bond. Brosnans wimpish looks? do you feel that inadequate to say such stupid comments? what next? perhaps George Clooney and Brad pitt are the ugliest men alive? Considering you have seen 0 celebs, wheres all this random info comming from?
J.J.F said on 10/Mar/06
versinty.... hmmm, might try that in scrabble next time.

Craig is 1.81m at best, though more like 1.79m. Anyhow, only one inch shorter than Brosso and a whole lot more buff to boot.
Craig's height may not be ideal, but then neither was Moore's acting or Brosnan's wimpish appearance. Quite frankly, there are slugs amoungst my home grown cucumbers that I find more menacing than Pierce.
I'm sure the Bond franchise will survive a 5'11" actor playing the part as long as he can actually ACT the part. And I thing D Craig probably can...
dmeyer said on 10/Mar/06
at best 5'11
dmeyer said on 10/Mar/06
at best 5ft 11
craig is almost as big as meany he might close to 5'11 but not over i dont get whi you say 181 when i doubt if h is 5'11 since he is smaller than meany and 3 inches smaller than hanks and aleast 4 inches smaller than bana

Editor Rob
I never got round to changing that mention, but yes I've now seen most of this guys films 180cm looks right
Brett said on 10/Mar/06
Funkmonk, Both Connery and Brosnan have been in the top 10 of " the sexiest men alive" of their time, infact I do believe one year, Connery as voted the sexiest man alive. Man you should get in there with your friend! she must be easy to please, and as for him being the best looking bond, pfffft he is the ugliest by far, why do you think all those sites like Click Here exist, and so many people want to boycott Casino Royale. Your friend is one in a million thats for sure, Id be interested to see a petition of people who believe Craig to be the 'best looking bond so far' , it would be a very very short list. But seeing we are getting side tracked here, and this site is about Craigs height, it seems that 90 percent of people do agree that Craigs height is in the versinty of 180cm.
MD said on 9/Mar/06
He has always looked average height at most outside of his movies. But man, has he put on a lot of muscle for this new Bond role:

1. Click Here

He looks to be 180-190 here, probably a good 20-30lbs than what he usually weighs, I'd guess.
funkmonk said on 9/Mar/06
to Brett: A friend of mine says that Daniel Craig is the best looking bond so far. Which is not hard, she says, as the rest are ugly!
Mr X said on 8/Mar/06
Daniel Craig's height shouldn't be the issue here. He's obviously close enough to pass for 6ft+ with the aid of a shorter supporting cast and contrary to some reports here he has a very muscular physique. My issue is that he's BLONDE!

But yeah, he'd be lucky to be 5'11 from what I've seen here...
Brett said on 8/Mar/06
J-Dog, you are obviously not around very many females, as every single one of my female friends, my girlfriend, and work collegues has mentioned Daniel Craig being really unattractive, scary looking, or remeniscent of an ex boxer whoes taken more then his fair share of blows to the head. J-Dog I think you should be questioning what you look like in the mirror, if you are suggesting that the guy isnt ugly. I am a huge bond fan, and it would take more then Daniel Craig to stop that, as I know he is a great actor, and the quality of his performance will be top notch, and most males go to a Bond film, for the action and the fact that it is a " Bond Film", but girls on the other hand, they enjoy "perve value" of a Bond Film, just like guys would if they happened to go to a charlies angels film. To my suprise, women seem to love Pierce Brosnans looks, despite his age, 95% of women think he is "all that", Craig, I have yet to hear one girl say anything positive about in the looks department, and unless you look like Rowan Atkinson, there are not many guys who are going to be outshown Visually by him.
Bond has an image of the ultimate "player" mixed with the ultimate secret agent, with acess to the worlds finest toys and females, an image most guys would love to have, and definitely this image is what draws the male audience, lets hope this image is still intact after Casino Royale.
zenski said on 1/Mar/06
181 cm and 183 cm.2cm diferent is nothing not even visible.
cendrin rovini said on 1/Mar/06
...when the bond in the books is 183 cm, why is daniel craig too small for bond, it makes me laugh... danny devito maybe a bad bond, but 3 cm, come on... give the guy a chance first, maybe hes the best bond ever after all...
Mario said on 1/Mar/06
The James Bond of the books is 6 ft as Ian Fleming stated. Dr No is 6 ft 6 and Blofeld was 6 ft 4 I believe. The James Bond of the movie's is 6 ft 2 as EON stated.

I think that Craig looks 5 ft 11 next Bana.
Anonymous said on 1/Mar/06
i just dont get whi he looks so short near ton hanks in road to perdition hanks looks 3" taller so either craig is 5'9.5 or tom hanks is wearing lifts and also were do you get 181 when he strugels to look 180
Desky said on 26/Feb/06
Actually, in the book 'Dr No' James Bond is described as being 5 feet 10 inches tall. When he first encounters Dr No he describes him as 'unusually tall at 'around six feet'.
Mario said on 26/Feb/06
He is not short, but compared to the others Bond's he is short.
Of course they can make him look taller, but "WE" know that he is much shorter than the others.
trueheight said on 24/Feb/06
he's not short, thats just absurd
Kumiko said on 24/Feb/06
I think he's pretty proportionate for 5' 8". And he's cute enough if he has dark hair. They wanted a grittier, military style James Bond. It's not realistic to have him so tall anyway. Besides, nobody will be able to tell how tall he is on the big screen--nobody has complained about 5 and a half feet before. It's only now that he plays Bond and all Brosnan's fans play the height card because Pierce really is the height he says he is. So yeah, he's a tiny man, but no it doesn't matter at all. If he's a good actor he can do it. That's the bottom line.
wasa said on 24/Feb/06
from the website "How can a short, blond actor with the rough face of a professional boxer and a penchant for playing killers, cranks, cads and gigolos pull off the role of a tall, dark, handsome and suave secret agent?"

thats just hollywood heightism at it's worst. i mean all previos bond actors where 6'2 or more, that's atleast 2 inches above what Bond was supposed to be. Then why is it impossible that a 5'10 actor can play the part, 2 inches beneath Fleming's description of Bond.
Tom said on 24/Feb/06
Aron's thing seems to be right. See in this picture where the light switch is about chest high.
The guy behind him might be standing on the lower step so they look more even.

In the end though, they can do anything in the movies. Just like they did with LOTR. So in Bond they can make him look just the right height. He might be closer to 66" than 60" though imho. But he might do okay otherwise, so why not give him a break.
Taylor said on 23/Feb/06
I worked as a day player on the as-yet-unreleased "Every Word is True" which is "the other Truman Capote movie" with Sandra Bullock. I spent the afternoon pushing Daniel Craig (he played one of two defendants) up the courthouse steps. I can attest that I stood taller than him and I was NOT wearing tall boots and I am 5'10 1/2". Still, what really matters in film is if you can act. He can ACT...brilliantly. I just hope that all the brainwashed masses can realize that we have been fed "tall, dark and handsome" forever by Hollywood. But then again, how many blond men are are fully Jewish? Blond guys are portrayed as bad or ignorant in movies. Hmmm...wonder why? Jude Law isn't really very blond. McConaughey lightens his hair too. Redford was natural though. I guess Teutonic people will eventually be O.K.
Gotxo said on 22/Feb/06
Lol Aaron, with 146cm he would make an excelent nick-nack (the dwarf of the TMWTGG) ;)
Aaron Martyr said on 22/Feb/06
I used Photoshop to layer several stills of DC that also feature objects (soda can, height of doornob, Aston Martin spec. measurements, etc.) to conclusively prove his actual height (in dress shoes). Comparing to other actors is not reliable because they also may fudge stats for PR purposes, and most soundstages are built to accomodate shooting scenes with actors of different heights. The end result proved him to between 141 and 146 centimeters, which is around 60 inches tall. Since this methodology is repeatable with any given set of pictures , it conclusively proves Daniel Craig's height to be very close to 144.28 centimeters. Anyone who argues this without carefully conducting their own documented battery of measurements against real-world objects would just be foisting their own preconceived notions on the rest of us. Besides, he is obviously short, and just looking at any full length picture reinforces the absolute fact that Daniel Craig is 141-146 centimeters tall. I did this testing because he is one of my favorite actors, and I'm sick of seeing him represented as being something he's not. He will make an excellent bond. His height of 144 centimeters in now way impacts his incredible acting ability or charisma.
wasa said on 20/Feb/06
I saw Layer Cake a few days ago and he did seem to look more like 5'10-5'10.5. But he might have looked tinier because he seemed to be surrounded by bigger guys like 6"2 George Harris. Still he seemed to be shorter than 5'11 Colm Meaney, also his shoulder width seemed to be a lot smaller then Colm, more like a 5'7-5'9 guy.
Brett said on 16/Feb/06
Craig is a good actor, but I mean hes not great looking, hes blonde, it doesnt really bother me that hes shorter then the others though, and he just isnt what we would associate with James Bond. I personally thing Hugh Jackman could have made a great bond, I think Chris Bale would be a great bond, I mean hes goodlooking,has the accent already, hes very slick in a suit, and he can play a narcissitic metrosexual role well, so why on earth did they choose Craig? They trying to kill off the female audience ?
wasa said on 15/Feb/06
i saw munich yesterday and I got to admit I was pleasantly surprised by Craig's performance. He's definitely not short, he was shorter then Bana who is obviously very tall, but he didn't seem like a small guy. More importantly, the guy has charisma and is pretty well built, and without trying to sound gay, he's got the bluest eyes i've ever seen in a man. ;) He's handsome in a rough way, so i think he does fit the bond description. Very nice english accent aswell. So give the guy some credit, although I'm a big fan of Brosnan (it's a shame the Bond movies after GoldenEye were suckin' in storyline) I think he could do well. And what does height have to do with the fact that he's gonna portray a good Bond or not, I think you guys often seem to judge the value of the performance of an actor based on his height.
Damon said on 2/Feb/06

I don't know how long this image will last. But he certainly looks around 6foot there. And he's definitely pretty built. I'd say he'll make a great Bond, although a bit grittier than previous ones. I'm perfectly fine with that.
Anonymous said on 29/Jan/06
even that on ocassions craig dont look as tall as this but in munich he does look close to 5'11 near 6'3" bana and geofrey rush apeared closer to bana's height than craig did rush can be 6 feet
JJE said on 28/Jan/06
If anyone has ever read any of the books, Bond's description is that he is 6 ft 1, and has athletic build. Also, according to the books, he's supposed to be "handsome" but rather "hard corps" looking, due to some of the torture that he suffers in the earlier books. He definitely didn't have blond hair though.
J.J.F said on 23/Jan/06
If i had to have a guess I'd say 1.79m ... A little on the short side for 007, non?
Mario said on 18/Jan/06
Terence Young (The director of the first two) said that Bond should be played by a guy who is at least 6 ft 2 tall.
Guy Hamilton (director of four Bond's) said that Bond should be played by a guy who is at least 6 foot tall, he considered Burt Reynold back then who was according to Hamilton 6 foot tall.

Maybe some lifts can help Craig to come to the other "6 ft 2+" Bond's.
Viper652 said on 18/Jan/06
Im still pretty surprised that they picked a Bond under 6-0. I thought it was Mandatory that every Bond has to be 6-0 or taller?
Glenn said on 17/Jan/06
I ran into craig and he is was ruined by his assistant on purpose.craig,you suck and dont know how to treat fans.brosnan is 6-1 tops.
dmeyer said on 17/Jan/06
if tom hanks is not wearing lift in that pic then craig is no even 5'10 so rob wath proof do you got that craig is 5'11 show me some pics

Editor Rob
I'm sure he's in trainers if I recall, they may be all worn-out thin-soled, but remember one guy who interviewed him had estimated he was 5ft 10.5. In layer cake he looked 5ft 11 based on the other heights from the guys, but lifts???
Jason said on 17/Jan/06
Brosnan was big enough. Bit on the slim side, but he's tall and has a decent frame on him. Which IMO makes for a Better Bond prototype than shorter with a bit more muscle.
funkmonk said on 17/Jan/06
A pic of Brosnan and Craig. About a 2 inch advantage to Brosnan.
J.J.F said on 17/Jan/06
Mike, do us a favor mate and check your facts before such feats of disinformation:

"...and his Munich co-star Eric Bana was also strongly considered for the 007 role"

Untrue - Bana was vaguely 'mentioned' in connection to the role but said early on he didnt want it.

"Brosnan is much taller and has a bigger build than Craig"

Debatable whether he really is THAT much taller than Craig - but a BIGGER BUILD?? Craig (see: Layer cake) has more muscle on him (that is not to say he is particularly 'big') than Brosnan ever had. Anyone who honestly thinks Brosnan is well built or muscular really should get to the gym more often :)

As for Daniel Craig's height - I'd agree he is a tad too short for the iconic role - but rather a decent actor who is only 5'10-5'11, than a smug TV actor who detracts 2 years off his age and adds them in inches to his 'frame'...

Brett said on 17/Jan/06
Mike do you think Brosnan is 6'2"? because everyone on the brosnan page want to bring him down to 6'0". Both Me and Glenn have met Brosnan, I thought he was around 6'2" ( Im 6'1") and Glenn pegged him at 6'0" , I was interested to see what you say on the matter.
Mario said on 14/Jan/06
Bond was in the 60s played by Connery and Lazenby who where 6 ft 2.5. And when they looked for a new Bond in the late 60s they looked for a men between 6 ft 1 to 6 ft 4. A 6 ft 2.5 guy in the 60s is the same as a 6 ft 4.5 today.
Mike said on 13/Jan/06
Here's a link with Daniel Craig standing next to Nicole Kidman:
Mike said on 13/Jan/06
Of course, Connery and Moore won't badmouth Craig, but honestly from seeing him in a few other movies, Daniel Craig just doesn't have that Alpha male persona that is necessary to make a good Bond. I thought even Timothy Dalton was a better fit, even though he didn't do well in the box office as 007. Hugh Jackman would have been perfect to play 007, a lot of people chose him as their favorite candidate when it was discovered that Brosnan was leaving the role. Clive Owen was the number two choice, also better than Craig an taller at 6'2".
Tubbs said on 12/Jan/06
I agree Mike about him not lasting too long, Craig is a good actor, but he doesn't seem to fit the description. I've heard he's only contracted for one movie, so you never know, there could be a return for Brosnan. However, Connery and Moore seem to think he'll be pretty good, but having said that, they aren't gonna say he's gonna be crap. Any ideas when the picture of Glenn with Craig is available? Saw a picture of him in Our Friends in the North next to the 6ft Eccleston, looks now more than 5'11 next ot him, maybe a shade under that mark.
Mike said on 11/Jan/06
Regardless, I don't think Craig will last very long in the Bond role. Timothy Dalton was the 007 that adhered most closely to the novel, and he wasn't that popular. The overall reaction to Craig as 007 has been underwhelming, I saw a photo of Craig standing next to his predecessor, Pierce Brosnan, Brosnan is much taller and has a bigger build than Craig. If they had to replace Brosnan, Jackman should have gotten the role.
Tubbs said on 11/Jan/06
Craig isn't going to be the shortest Bond you know, Peter Sellars at about 5'8.5 was James Bond in Casino Royale, and is therefore the shortest man to have played Bond.
Mike said on 10/Jan/06
Bond is not supposed to be 7' tall, but he is supposed to be a large man, several other actors were considered for the role who are taller than Craig. Hugh Jackman was the front runner, he stands 6'3", and his Munich co-star Eric Bana was also strongly considered for the 007 role, Bana is the same height as Jackman.
dmeyer said on 10/Jan/06
if he is 5'11 i dont get whi he looks 3 " shorter than hanks
Eddd said on 9/Jan/06
Brosnan wanted to leave the role. Craig is 5'11. And though he's the shortest Bond, it doesn't meant at all that 5'11 is too short to be a Bond.

You expect just because it's Bond, he'd be 7'? Why not get Yao Ming to be the next Bond?
CelebHeights Editor said on 6/Jan/06
From GQ magazine a few years back (Sylvia), "They did a good job of making us seem similar in height, but you can tell he's not 6ft 4in" - Gwyneth Paltrow.
Mike said on 30/Dec/05
Daniel Craig is 5'11" and that is it, making him the shortest 007, Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery, and Timothy Dalton stood at 6'2". I honestly don't know why they replaced Brosnan, he was the best 007 after Sean Connery.
Glenn said on 30/Dec/05
saw him too last week in new yorkI dont agree with built.when I develope my photo with him Ill scan it in.he is 5-11.
Anonymous said on 29/Dec/05
Jude Law is NOT 5'11". He is way too short for that. 5'9".
Picture said on 20/Dec/05
Craig has a bad posture in that picture but I say 3 inches wich makes Craig 5 ft 10.
Britpop said on 15/Dec/05
I'm not convinced he's over 5'8". Show me a pic where he could even be 5'10". This guys as little as tiny Jude Law.
Tubbs said on 8/Dec/05
Maybe Craig at 5'11" isn't too short for Bond, as the British secret service have 5'11" as maximum height for field operation agents, so as not to stand out, and to 'blend into the background', not sure about the blonde hair though, d'ya reckon they'll dye it?
dmeyer said on 5/Dec/05
rob ithink he is shorter than 5'11 i saw road to perdition he looks around 2.5" shorter than hanks who is 184 is body doesnt look long
dmeyer said on 3/Dec/05
rob i would like to see a pic were craig look 5'11 because i am not convinced

Editor Rob
you think he's taller??? or shorter?
Anonymous said on 23/Nov/05
i met hanks he is 184 cm at best so is at best 177 cm
Brett said on 23/Nov/05
yes woopee lets claim hes 5'2", Kiera Knightly is not 5'4" thats garbage, she is meant to be a tall actress, have you seen bend it like beckham, she was taller then all the female actresses basically, and not far from the soccer coachs height, so good one Madeline, better luck next time
Madeline said on 20/Nov/05
Just went to a premier screening of Pride and Prejudice. Keira was very short. I would say 5'4".

Brett said on 20/Nov/05
Anonymous Kiera Knightly is atleast 5'7" so if she had near 4 inch heels on shed be around 5'11", so if hes taller then her hes atleast 5'11".
CelebHeights Editor said on 2/Nov/05
An email from somebody:
"In Selfridges last year (in the fragrances dept...) I passed Daniel Craig.
I'm 5'11''and he can be no more than 5' 9" and quite slight. Some clever
Bond filming is need3ed"
Anonymous said on 1/Nov/05
Here he is next to 5'4" Knightly in 3-4" inch heels. He is clearly under 5'10".
Anonymous said on 1/Nov/05
I think it's pretty easy to tell he is really only 5'9" or 10"
Brett said on 24/Oct/05
I cannot believe these people who come on here and claim dalton and brosnan are like 5'11", you have clearly not met these men, I can stand for brosnan as having met him, that he is easily in the 6'2" mark, and he probably wears chunky shoes quite often making him look even taller. After seeing that photo with brosnan i would comfortably say that daniel craig is 5'11" atleast. If anyone has seen layer cake they would have noticed how lanky and thin the guy is, from that alone you would think he was over 6ft, although I dont think this is the case. So I definitely agree, atleast 5'11" as from that pic with paltrow he looks around 2 - 2.5 inches taller then her, you can tell by his shoulder level being noticably higher then hers despite the camera angle being in his favour it is still obvious. shes 5'9.5" or so, making him atleast 5'11"
Anonmoose said on 24/Oct/05

In the Wired section

10/15/2005 2:54 PM
Columbia's Amy Pascal's claim in Sharon Waxman's N.Y. Times piece (10.15) that Daniel Craig, the new 007, "is the same size as Sean Connery" is hooey. I'm not calling Craig a shrimp, but he's a good two inches shorter than me. I'm 6 foot 1/2 inch, and I'd say he's about 5 foot ten and a half inches, give or take...maybe 5' 11". (I stood next to him after we did a Layer Cake interview in Park City last Janaury during the Sundance Film Festival.) And I've stood next to Connery, and he's at least 6'1" or 6'2". The website says he's 6 foot and 1 and 1/2 inches. The site has Craig at 5'11".

10/14/2005 8:11 AM

It's official: Daniel Craig is the new James Bond. The first blonde 007, and...the shortest. Sorry but I had to throw that in. I've stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig and I know whereof I speak.
Evaristo said on 23/Oct/05
very strange....
Mario Nariano said on 19/Oct/05
If Dalton wores two inch lifts why does he look 6 ft 2, he should look 6 ft 1 in that case. And brosnan always looked 6 ft 1 to 6 ft 2, even before Goldeneye.
J.J.F said on 18/Oct/05
Sorry but Dalton wore lifts for most of his career and Brosnan did from Goldeneye onwards, that is a fact confirmed by their former agents.

Dalton is 6' and wore 2" lifts, Brosnan is 5'11" and wears 2" lifts. So no prob with 'upping' Daniel Craig to 6'1" with a bit of shoe-magic...
Mario Nariano said on 18/Oct/05
Of course they aren't going too say: Well he is pretty short, three inches shorter than the other bond's.
talker said on 18/Oct/05
in the photo with brosnan he looks at least 3inches shorter like Anonmoose correctly says.I believe Brosnan is about 6'1",so the guy must be 5'10" at best,no way he is even 5'11".
CelebHeights Editor said on 17/Oct/05
Sony Chief Executive quoted in the NyTimes: "Ms. Pascal said fans would have to wait to see the movie before judging Mr. Craig. As for the online criticism, she observed: "Well, he is tall. He's the same size as Sean Connery."

I think that meant to read: "he's the same size as sean connery when he's in 3-inch lifts"
JUSTMATT said on 16/Oct/05
For sure now that he becomes James Bond his height will magically grow up!
talker said on 16/Oct/05
Craig looks short.I remember when i saw this guy in tombraider and i had never seen him before,i was puzzled why they would star aguy so short next to Angelina.He looks barely taller than her and is obviously physically small,unlike other short actors.
I think he must be around 5'9"at the most.
As far as being bond,if they want to throw their money away.......
Anonymous said on 16/Oct/05
That pic with daniel Craig and Hanks is iffy, hanks head is huge, meaning his closer to the camera, and I think it is more an optical illusion that hanks appears bigger then the others, certainly by that much atleast. plus you cant see their feet
Anonymous said on 16/Oct/05
Well atleast that pic with him and brosnan will shut the some people up who claim pierce is struggling with 6ft, mr Anonmoose reckons brosnan is 3inches taller then craig (if he actually stood up straight). But Mr J.J.F whoes clearly never met either dalton or brosnan ( and probably has a height complex) claims they are struggling with 6ft and need huge lifts to make themselves appear domineering for the role of bond.
Mario Nariano said on 15/Oct/05
Ian Flemming's bond was 6 ft tall, not 5 ft 11. So graig is one inch too short, but the other bond's are two inches too tall!
Anonmoose said on 15/Oct/05
No posts here before he was Bond and now there will be a ton. Funny.

Fleming stated Bond was 6 ft which was considered taller back in 1952 than it is now.

Craig with Brosnan at the GQ Awards in Sept 2005

Brosnan is leaning and is still at least a couple inches taller. Craig is minimum 3 inches shorter than Brosnan.
Issheuhboy said on 13/Oct/05
Height doesn't matter for Bond, he's either standing up in a suit, laying down on a bed (either with a girl, or poised, ready to shoot some guy), or punching some henchman out of a car in a volcano/undersea lab. They could get a 5'2 actor to do that and you wouldn't be able to tell...
Mario Nariano said on 13/Oct/05
Dalton and Brosnan didn't wore lifts, come with better arguments when you want too downgrade a celeb. Anaway this guy is too short for bond.
I'm surprised that they fired Ewan Mccregor because he was too short and this guy is marginally taller than Mccregor.
J.J.F said on 13/Oct/05
He's not over 5'11" - but nothing that a pair of well polished elevator shoes can't fix. Dalton and Brosnan used them too, so no problem.
Anonymous said on 13/Oct/05
hes the new james bond, and he surely doesnt fit the role, hes like 3 inches too short, has light hair instead of black, and is scrawny as hell
Issheuhboy said on 12/Oct/05
Taller bonds? But all the Bonds have been at least 6'1!

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

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