How tall is Jude Law - Page 4

Add a Comment957 comments

Average Guess (221 Votes)
5ft 10.17in (178.2cm)
Potty said on 16/Sep/06
Elevator shoes give you 2.5 inches. They have varied kinds nowadays. Virtually undetectable. That would explain the varying heights we see.

Case closed.

God we are sad!
MD said on 15/Sep/06
An inch at a time, Viper. Again, even giving Jay 5'11", Law was still a full inch shorter. BTW, Jay didn't look too much shorter than 6'1" Tucker Carleson when he made a guest apperance on the same show. I saw at most a 2" difference. My point is, we have to get this guy outside his show, because I have a inkling he may wear lifts on the show, but I don't have much proof. He regularly only appears an inch shorter than legitimately 6'0" person on his show.
Viper652 said on 15/Sep/06
I saw it too. I think Jay is 5-10 Max. Jude looks to be 5-9
MD said on 15/Sep/06
This guy was just on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Sept. 14-15, 2006), and he was a full inch shorter than Jay Leno, who is listed at 5'11", here. Why is Jude STILL at 5'11"?
anonymous2 said on 13/Sep/06
173-175cm max. Jude appears to be yet another average-height actor whose good posture, slim build and, last but not least, heeled boots, can make him appear 2,3 inches taller.
Glenn said on 12/Sep/06
If he is 5-9,then Jagger is 5-7.he looked 6ft next to 5-10 Im saying he is 6ft,but he is a true 5-11.
Anonymous said on 11/Sep/06
Glenn's usually pretty close but he's so off here. Law is quite clearly not over 5'9" barefoot.
Anonymous said on 11/Sep/06
Watch the scene in I heart Huchabees when he is in the elevator with Jason Schwartzman (5'5") (it's near the end of the movie). They stand side by side in the elevator and LAw is pretty clearly 5'8ish".
Lestat said on 10/Sep/06
Drooperdoo: There u go, someone reasonable here.. :)
Lestat said on 5/Sep/06
Come on, Jude's saying the truth! I am about 176 cm, 67 kgs, we have about the same body type and yes... i do look 180cm when people look at me from far away. Its related to the frame size, to body type. When i get close people realize i am not that tall...

It happens the same with girls. Slender, 170cm girls can look really tall and elegant.. a fat guy who's about 174 cm, seeing from a distant, looks shorter than a 5' 7'' girl..

It has do to with the eyes.... and just look at the movie Wilde!.. how can Jude be 180 cm after seeing that movie? Beckham has 180 cm... it was stated in Manchester united site, in 1998. An accurate height. Beckham does look so much taller than Jude!.. well... 4, 5 cm.....
Glenn said on 4/Sep/06
Like Elton,that Jagger being short is a myth.ok Elton might be 5-7.but no way the 5-3 to 5-5 I read.Elton has looked as tall as 5-10,and Jagger as tall as 6ft.of course I guess in lifts.
anonymous2 said on 3/Sep/06
It's difficult to see him as being taller than 173cm in the photos posted where he is wearing flat shoes, so 180cm seems a bit high.
mouldy said on 3/Sep/06
Glenn: Whaaat? I saw Mick Jagger being listed as 174 cm (5'8.5") in a german magazine...and more than once! And german magazines usually upgrade the heights a bit, like Nicole Kidman is usually listed at 182 cm. And in one of those magazines I saw a pic of Jude & Sienna Miller walking, both in sneakers, and he was maximum 4" taller than her! How tall is she anyway? She doesn't look like a 5'7" to me anyway...
Anonymous said on 29/Aug/06
rob, just out of curiosity, how come you believe Jude is 2 inches taller than he is quoted for his height? what makes you believe he was underestimating himself at 5'9?
Drooperdoo said on 29/Aug/06
I actually did a photographic test. I'm 5'7.5''-5'8'' barefoot. In shoes [with no lifts] I'm 5'9''. So it's easy to take Law at his word that he's 5'9'' barefoot and 5'10''-5'11'' in shoes. (You guys keep looking at him and forgetting to exclude the extra height given from footwear.] Barefoot he looks 5'9''-5'9.5'' to me. (And that's what he says he is.) Why make him taller than he himself says?
Glenn said on 28/Aug/06
Again,looked 6ft next to 5-10 Mick Jagger.
Boche said on 28/Aug/06
shortguy: "I met Jude Law at a Black Tie event last year. I'm a bit short myself at 5'11". Jude was a shade taller than me."

5'11" is short?? wow, thank you for proving the theory that there is no limit to human stupidity. you are an idiot, a pure idiot my friend. average height is 5'9". attitudes like yours are the reason height standards are so ridiculous nowadays. just shut your mouth.

tom: I can identify with you. I myself am barely 5'8" barefoot, but I wear elevator shoes and lifts that boost me up to a solid 6'. The confidence I have while wearing them has changed my life. Go to and order some stuff on there, it's legit. As long as your above 5'6", there is hope to make yourself somewhat tall.

Oh yeah, and Jude Law is easily 5'11".
MD said on 27/Aug/06
I'm so baffled by how he's still at 5'11". He needs to be taken down at least an inch to make this at least a bit realistic, and even that's too tall.
project mayhem said on 27/Aug/06
I know how men looks like who aure 5'11. Jude Law is 5'9 and not taller.
Viper652 said on 26/Aug/06
A legit 5-9 can look 5-10-5-11 to some. Its not a bad height. A skinny well proportioned 5-9 can look tallish actually. Just look at 5-9 NFL player Steve Smith. He looks tallish in some pictures.
leonari said on 26/Aug/06
Anonymous: Anybody saying 5'9" is short or "extremely short" is either living in Sweden , is dutch or...A HUGE IDIOT. 5'9" is average height some fools on this board are just anoying...these comments literally piss me off and I think stoping to visit as well as posting here.
Fawley said on 25/Aug/06
I don't know about Brody, but Jude Law lives in London, England. How would you see him "a lot" in Tribecca and Santa Monica? He may be anywhere from 5'9" to 5'11" -- that's a believable range depending on whether he slouches and depending on the onlooker, so 5'9" is not out of the question, but 5'9" is "extremely short"? You're out of your freakin' mind.
tom said on 25/Aug/06
I hate height.
I hate being short.
It ruines my life. I'm five seven and a half to eight.
I wish I was comfortable with it.
But it ruines everything.
But I wouldn't if it wasn't such a f***ing big deal.
Anonymous said on 25/Aug/06
this site is so ridiculous. adrien brody and jude law are both the same size- 5 foot 9. jude law is listed at 5 foot 11 and brody is listed at 6 foot 1??? I see them both- a lot- brody more than law, just by living in tribeca and santa monica. They are both extremely short and weigh maybe 135 pounds.
shortguy said on 25/Aug/06
I met Jude Law at a Black Tie event last year. I'm a bit short myself at 5'11". Jude was a shade taller than me.
dolores said on 17/Aug/06
i was on the set of my blueberry nights and would say he's 5'10".he might appear shorter because he's very narrow...he's got a great strong neck and fabulous upper arms, but not an ounce of fat anywhere....he looks beautiful from the front and very sexy from the back......when he holds his head up high he appears 5'11".
dolores said on 17/Aug/06
i saw jude on the set of my blueberry nights....i would say 5'10"....he appears shorter because he's very narrow....wonderful strong neck and great upper arms. he hasn't got an ounce of fat on him...beautiful from the road and very sexy from the back....
Fawley said on 10/Aug/06
@just me --- Did you mean that as a joke? The running shoes look normal-flat to me (though abnormally loud in colour). Actually I've seen some trendy ones that are a lot 'higher' (with more sole padding I suppose). I've seen lots of pics of Jude and I look at his shoes because I know he loves shoes. None of the ones I've seen him wear look like they could possibly have lifts in them.

Editor Rob
they look like they are undercut so I guess what the person means is there looks more space between trainer and ankle?
UNK said on 10/Aug/06
They're regular running sneakers... what are you talking about?
just me said on 9/Aug/06
Well he is Clerly wearing lifts as u can see in these runing shoes
Click Here

think hes 5.8-5.9
George H said on 2/Aug/06
Fawley: no, unfortunately not. You have to be a professional photographer or belong to a news agency to get a paid subscription to those photo sites. Beaty is leaning forward towards Law in the first picture and is bending his neck forward to the left in the second. There's easily 2 to 3 inches between them, due to Beatty's enormous head :)
Fawley said on 1/Aug/06
George H, could you post bigger pics? Those are teeny.
If Warren Beatty really is 6'2", then Law is at least 5'11". He sure is a shape shifter. I for one don't believe people who say he's shorter than 5'9" when they see him in person. People always expect movie stars to be giants and when they see them for real, even when they are the normal 5'10" or 5'11", it's like *gasp* that guy is a dwarf!
George H said on 1/Aug/06
Jude Law with 6'2" Warren Beatty and ? Jack Valenti (that man's a shrimp for sure!) Click Here and Click Here
Glenn said on 31/Jul/06
Yeah,he is filming here.2 inches bigger than what I see at 5-10 Mick Jagger at a movie this Jude is a little tricky.
M-Star said on 30/Jul/06
Saw him on the street in NYC, and I am 5'10", he was just little taller than me, so I say 5'11" is accurate.
Danielle .A . Harris said on 25/Jul/06
I suspect Julia is 5.5" , Natlie is 5'2" maybe 5'3? Clive Owen is over 6'0 but with out lifts on . So as far as Julia & Jude looking the suggested heights by others comments frm the Movie Closer , they seem to not understand that Julia and Jude both are untruthfull about height. So if she (Julia) is 5.5 and has say 4' inch heals on the she would appear 5.9" and if Jude is 5'9" like his statement ses and wears a two inch lift (I suspect) then 5'11 he would's common practice in hollywood for agents to lie about male leads say a lead is 5.9.5" inches they say well he could pass for 5'11. ...then if we use lifts ah! six feet he could appear. Side note for those who claim to have met actor "x" in public and say wow they are so small well consider they are in flesh(no stage or film) maybe no lifts on (by the way you can fit lifts into flat van's type sneakers). lastley all of todays entertainment stars height's are fictional. Side Note: Take the late James Dean For Example He get's listed at the warner site as 5'10 but clearly in life he stood 5'8' he even stated it, and eyewitness accounts back up the fact. I saw a picture of he (Dean and Brando) in nyc circa 1954 Brando in those days was 5'10 and Dean was Shorter much.Keep in mind holloywood produces films for entertainment and the producers play off idealized views of American Culture for instance. fact is nothing in hollywood is real . ;-)
Karen said on 13/Jul/06
In the pics below that UNK posted with Paltrow where the two of them are barefoot Law was actually standing slightly above her (so he could appear taller??). Paltrow from what I've heard from eyewitness sightings is actually 5'7. So if that is true then isn't it possible he could be 5'6?
leonari said on 7/Jul/06
I don't get why he is still on 5'11. No way is he that tall...Maybe 5'9.5" on a very very good day...But 180 cm you look taller on screen and especially pictures than Law does. Plus he is very thin that should create the illusion of height when it comes to pictures ,still he looks 5'9" on every full body shot...
Anonymous said on 7/Jul/06
Okay, but his backside isn't against a wall here. If she is 5'1.5", he is WELL below 5'10". That is not a big enough didtance. Her big shoes are probably making her 5'4" MAX. This also calls for a serious reassesment of Sienna Miller's overexaggerated height.
This picture shows Jude is probably what he said, "5'9" (but most likely under 5'9") I have NEVER seen a 5'11" guy look that short in a series of pictures EVER. And notice: He is not in his secret heeled boots!
Anonymous said on 7/Jul/06
With 5'1.5" Nora Jones:
Click Here
We're lookin' at 5'9" (which seems a tiny exaggeration in itself).

Editor Rob
well, hard to say much. I've seen the dozen pics of them and as you know he's got his backside leaning against wall in lot of them
leonari said on 29/Jun/06
5'9".Never 5'11"
UNK said on 28/Jun/06
barefoot pics... he really doesn't seem too much taller than paltrow

Click Here

Click Here
Anonymous said on 24/Jun/06
Not much taller than 5'8" Paltrow
Click Here
Anonymous said on 24/Jun/06
He's the exact same height as Matt Damon 5'9"
Click Here
Height Detective said on 2/Jun/06
Jude Law and Natalie Portman Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here
joe said on 7/May/06
I met him in L.A He is about 59 5 9.5 im 100 percent sure
Frank2 said on 3/May/06
Then explain this one: Click Here

And this one: Click Here

And here: Click Here

Here's Jude with Daily Variety's Tim Gray: Click Here
Tim is slightly over 6'.
dmeyer said on 3/May/06
he is taller than paltrow even when shis is wearing 4" heels 182 is verry possible the only time he dosnt apear that tall is near hanks
dmeyer said on 2/May/06
in closer next to 5'8" julia he looks 6' since she is wearing 7 to 8 cm heels that make her about 180 and he has looks with ease 2" bigger but he is wearing only 1.25"he looks 6'1" in shoes but compare to clive he doesnt look a full 6' maybe a strong 181 clive might be 189 as he claims 5'11 might be right because if he was a full 6' he would have look closer to hanks height

Editor Rob
181 isn't outwith the realms of possibility, in fact...he was that for a while, and 182 I think aswell! Yes, I've seen closer and agree with your assesment...but then glenn was saying julia didn't look as tall lately, hmm
Chris said on 26/Apr/06
Jude Law looks 5'11' right on the mark.
Frank2 said on 26/Apr/06
"If you're 6' like you said before and if Nichols and you are the same haight, I can tell Mr Law is 5'11''1/2 from the picture you linked."

But Dan, I'm not 6', but 5'11" and Mike Nichols is about 5'10".
dan said on 26/Apr/06
Thanks Rob they are exactly the pictures I was talking about. Miller is obviously much smaller (1'+), then one of the 2 heights must be a bit wrong...
dan said on 26/Apr/06
If you're 6' like you said before and if Nichols and you are the same haight, I can tell Mr Law is 5'11''1/2 from the picture you linked. That make sens because the first height for him on this site was the height given to Rob by his agency. Guess what? It was 5'11''1/2 !
Right Rob?
UNK said on 25/Apr/06
Very interesting, looking at the pics dan linked us to I noticed that the height difference between 5'0" Christina Ricci (in heels) and Law, is not much different that Sienna Miller (in cowboy boots) and Law. Making me serioulsy question Miller's 5'5" claim.

My guess on Law is 5'10.5"
dan said on 25/Apr/06
Click Here

here with 5'6'' Juliette Binoche who is wearing 3'1/2 heels.
Mr law is obviously 6 feet even if he's wearing 1.5 inch heeled boots
dan said on 25/Apr/06
sorry the links didn't work but search those pictures @gettyimages, you'll see
dan said on 25/Apr/06
I think we have to face the fact Jude Law is at least 5'11'' (Personnally Ithink he's between 5'11''1/2 - 6'). Simply because he looks taller than 5'11'' people on every pictures here. I hoped the guy was average but it's obvious that he is a bit taller.
Here with 5'10'' 1/2 Johnny lee miller
Click Here

here with 5'11'' Daniel craig
Click Here

Face it! Of course Ithink many will prefer to believe the few pictures when he's slouching and looks smaller than them....
dan said on 24/Apr/06
Jude Law seems to be 6' near 5'5'' Sienna Miller
Click Here
Frank2 said on 13/Apr/06
"Jude Law is 5'11 at the most:"

Not with that photo. More like 5'10" at the most. I'm about the same height as Tom Hanks, maybe a half an inch shorter and look how much taller he is than Jude. And poor Newman has shrunk a lot since I last saw him in the flesh. Back the during Slapshot he was 5'10" or at least looked that height when he stood next to me in the ADR stage where he was replacing his many swear words with toned down versions for the TV and airline version. The scene where Newman is in the phone booth talking to his soon-to-be ex-wife and says, "nuts!" in the cleaned up version it's actually my voice doing a Newman impression! Paul refused to say "nuts" and told me to just keep the temp line in that I had previopusly recorded, that I sounded enough like him to keep it in that version. That line had been done on a cheap cassette deck so I redid it right in front of him. Newman then asked me if I did impressions and we both started to joke around. Newman did a superb Brando! Whenever that version of Slapshot is shown on TV I and I hear "nuts!" I still crack up!
Fawley said on 12/Apr/06
Anonymous, He said he was 5'9", but then he also says he's 5'10". I never met him so I can't say how tall he is but even if I did see him in person, it'd be difficult to be correct within an inch. All I am sure of is that he is not short; i.e. in a crowd of normal people, he would be of average height if not taller -- whatever numerical value that happens to be. It is weird that some people here say he's short. Just look at the many photos of him with other people for goodness sakes.
mcfan said on 9/Apr/06
Jude Law is 5'11 at the most:

Click Here
Foker said on 9/Apr/06
Please , stop complaint about of Jude Law being listed here at 5.11" , Rob is IMPARTIAL , he knows he is not shorter than 5.11" ,plus , Rob is 5.8 ft tall , he can easily downgrade all celebs to be more like his height , but he is objetive , is a fact that Jude Law is a little taller than Paltrow and he was not in lift ony normal shoes , i read the all discussion and the people who says that Jude Law is 5.8" or 5.9" need to buy a frkkin life , Jude Law IS 5.11 FT AN ALLWAYS WILL BE , im amazed about the people who says that Jude is 5.8 or 5.9 making otrageous claims and making outrageous methods to prove they absurd theory that jude law is 5.8.

This discussion about Jude Law being 5.8 or 5.9 was set up by a bunch of SHORTIES, for example , Sticks agressively claim that Jude Law is no more than 5.8 , when someone asked him his own height he only says "Im above average for a man " IF YOU ARE ASHAMED ABOUT YOUR HEIGHT AND DONT WANT TO TELL IT EVEN HIDDEN UNDER A NICKNAME , THEN IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE TROUBLE DEALING WITH YOUR OWN HEIGHT.
Anonymous said on 6/Apr/06
Fawley he said he is 5.9. If he were taller he would say that
Fawley said on 22/Mar/06
Anonymous says: "People with a slim built body usually looks taller then they really are." I hear ya but I think there's a difference between slim and skinny/gangly. Gangly-looking people (like growing teens and so on) tend to look tall because of their bony frame. Jude Law is slim but he is not skinny or gangly. He also has a big head and short legs compared to his torso. As I said before, I think he is 5'10" or so. I don't really care about his absolute height but the fact that it seems so variable is interesting. I know he is very flexible from the way he moves.
Who? said on 22/Mar/06
People with a slim built body usually looks taller then they really are, I don't know where people got the idea that a more buff body makes you look taller, it makes you more broad in proportions and therefore also makes you look shorter.
mia said on 22/Mar/06
Yeah you´re right, they look kind of short, but it could be the picture. I think you can´t tell by a picture how long they really are. When I see pictures of Kylie Minogue not standing next to anyone I always think she doesn´t look so short because her legs look pretty long.
What is more fascinating is that he´s so extremly hairy. I knew he is hairy, but I had no idea that he´s THAT
Who? said on 21/Mar/06
Found this picture, besides his hair is pretty growse I find his body frame while barefoot to be kind of small, he just looks small, short legs and so on.
Click Here
mia said on 20/Mar/06
Some days ago I´ve seen him presenting an award with Uma Thurman (at the Academy awards 2004). She was in heels and a bit taller than him, but not much. Uma in heels must be about 6´2" or even taller. I´m really starting to think that Jude Law is 6", though I´m still wondering why people who met him decribe him as short and why he himself said that he 5´9" or 5´10". If he was 5´10" he would look much shorter than Uma in heels, so I don´t get it...
dmeyer said on 17/Mar/06
i think he is in the 5'11 6 range
Frank2 said on 11/Mar/06
I've met Tom and he's just about 5'11 & 1/2". Why Jude looks shorter is a mystery.
mia said on 11/Mar/06
All right, thanks. The other one looked a little weird. lol
Fawley said on 9/Mar/06
I think he's about 5'10". He has a very slim boyish build so people tend to think he's small, like a boy.

mia, Gosh no that woman is not his mother. His mother is with him here
Click Here
mia said on 9/Mar/06
Look at this pic:

If Kate Winslet is 5
rwfender said on 8/Mar/06
well i think its a safe bet that jude law is not 6'2...if Kidman really is 6'2 in heels it is weird that Law looks that tall but then with Jagger he looks similar to his height which is also bizzare...
Anonymous said on 8/Mar/06
Nowhere does it ever put Jude at 5'11". I think it's pretty obvious that he's 5'10" or under. People don't refer to 5'11" guys as short when they meet them. It's just pretty abvious that he's under 5'10".
Frank2 said on 8/Mar/06
I've never met Law, but I did meet Kidman. She wore boots with three-inch heels and looked to be about six-two in them. Very tall woman. I met Jagger at a party many years ago and he looked to be about five-nine, maybe five-ten. He also looked loaded. So explain why in the photo with Kidman that Jude is as tall and she does have on heels.
rwfender said on 8/Mar/06
Frank2, if Law is 6 feet than that would make Mick Jagger 6ft too
rwfender said on 8/Mar/06
actually i think nicole kidman is more 5'10 than 5'11. i think law is 5'10
Frank2 said on 8/Mar/06
Nicole really needs to lay off the botox. In her three-inch heels she's about 6'2" so I suspect Jude is at least six feet.
Anonymous said on 26/Feb/06
I think it's really cute that people want to believe he's 5'11" when he said himself he's 5'9". It's strange how people prefer their own opinion over factual evidence from the source himself!! 5'9", guys. 5'9".

Editor Rob
the guy has given 182cm for his CV, has said he's 5ft 9 and 5ft 10...maybe he'll come out with another figure soon...
mia said on 23/Feb/06
I really don´t understand why Jude Law has a reputation for being SHORT. I always thought he looks pretty tall. What kind of magic must he be wearing all the time that make him look taller than everyone else? I know you can´t judge by movies or pictures, but he really does tower over most people he stands next to. He was about the same height as Matt Damon in The talented Mr Ripley and if Damon stated that he´s 5´10" I think 5´10"-5´11" sounds about right for Law. I think there´s also a scene where he and Gwyneth are standing on a boat. They don´t have any shoes on and I´d say that Law looks about 2 inches taller than Paltrow. If Law himself said that he´s 5´9"-5´10" I tend to believe that because why would he make himself smaller? In my opinion there´s no way that he´s under 5´9" and I think he´s pretty honest about his height.
DJL1 said on 17/Feb/06
Does anybody know how tall Cameron Diaz is? There's a ton of photos of her and Jude here (click where it says 'under the cut')

She was a model, right? So she should be fairly tall.
Anonymous said on 16/Feb/06
The thing is he is listed at 5'11 he really can not be more than that. How often are hollywood actors who are under 6ft really what they list themselves as? I think Law is probably close to 5'10 or perhaps a solid 5'10. This makes sense with everything.
175cm16andgrowing said on 13/Feb/06
Hum... Jude is listed as a 150lbs-er... on most pages... so he could be 5'9''. Remember, James Marsters (5'9.5'') said he was 150lbs in Buffy Season 2.
Tubbs said on 12/Feb/06
Saw a terrible British film with him in the other week from 1994, it had all the usual suspects, Jonathan Price, Sean Bean and yes, Sean Pertwee, Jude was in his early 20's, and looked really skinny, he also looked tall, taller than Pertwee, and he's down here as 6ft, and much taller than Bean, something doesn't add up here to me, either Pertwee isn't the full 6ft, or Jude is 6ft himself, who knows, the mystery goes on.
ds said on 11/Feb/06
He's listed as 5'11" everywhere. His build just doesn't make him look that I guess...didn't he say he was 5'10"...I dunno he could be 5'11"...
Mario said on 1/Feb/06
I'm 5 ft 11, if I say that I am 5 ft 8, am I then 5 ft 8?

"It depends on my mood, really. I'm five nine, and some days I only feel five nine. But if I'm feeling tall, I say six feet!"

I actually think that Jude means with this that he is 6 ft.
Anonymous said on 31/Jan/06
why is it that Josh Lucas says he is 5'11.5 and he is listed that on this site even though people say he looks tall, but when when Jude says he is 5'9 that goes ignored?
RW said on 22/Jan/06
PS - the guy who wrote this said he is 6'1. Maybe he just thinks he is 6'1 as well. I am 5'10 myself and i know a lot of guys my height who claim to be 6 foot.
RW said on 22/Jan/06
6'1? This is ridiculous, the man said he is 5'9 so he has got to be somewhere in that range.
Fawley said on 21/Jan/06
I can't believe the controversy over JL's height! The posts about his wearing shoe lifts are hysterical. Get real, people. Shoe lifts that could give him 3-4" in perfectly normal dress shoes would be a helluva engineering marvel. If there are any such thing, I'd love to buy them because I am a small woman (5 feet) and have been searching all my life for comfortable high heels. Jude is known to be quite a walker -- he walks very fast and goes walking all over London. If he's got lifts I'd love to have them too.

Anyway, here's my contribution. This is a sighting from The entry is on June 12, 2005. The interesting thing is that the person described Jude as both tall AND small at the same time. The relevant bits are in CAPS.

"Under a different account, I posted about my latest time seeing him at the Sky Cap premiere in the comments to an ancient post that was here, I went looking for it but I can't find it. I know others were being bitchy in it so maybe a mod deleted it. Anyway... I'll summarise. I'M ABOUT 6'1", AND JUDE WAS EASILY NEARLY AS TALL. THOSE WHO SAY HE'S SHORT, WELL I DON'T KNOW, THEY MUST BE FREAKING 7' GIANTS THEMSELVES. AND HE HAD ON FLAT DRESS SHOES. BUT HE'S A SMALL MAN, AS IN - THIN. Very very slim, and what he wore to the premiere complimented his build. He does look even more handsome in person, in my opinion. In fact that's an understatement. There's no way he can be real, he looks that good. He's very quick to smile, especially at fans. Other fans/photogs were all but trying to maul him (thank god for the rails) and each other, trying to get to him, and he put up with it all in such a good natured way. Gwyneth Paltrow was very clingy with him, touchy feely all over him like she was a smitten schoolgirl, it was cute but I'm sure her hubby Chris Martin was jealous. I mean she was attached to him. I might've imagined it but I could swear Angelina Jolie and Bai Ling both patted his butt at different times. They all acted like friends more than costars, like they genuinely enjoyed being there together.

I have seen him before but never that close. I didn't get an autograph, but I did get to grope his arm a little for a few seconds before he moved on. Sadly, that made my entire year.

I can't imagine him yelling at you. From my own experiences and every single thing I've ever heard about him that I believe to be true, he's a complete charmer with his fans. At worst he might brush you off if he's busy or stressed. Or one of his body guards (?) might push you out of the way depending on the location and how you approach him. In my book he is probably one of the nicest celebs you could hope to meet - but having not actually met him myself, yet, unless you count arm groping, I could be proven wrong. And hey, he's human. We all have our moods."
horacle said on 7/Jan/06
he's definitelly at least 5'9
i think he's around 5'10
175cm16andgrowing said on 6/Jan/06
5'9'' is average...also Jude's like Jams Van Der Beek. Both have a very large face and are more skinny so I'd say they look the same height... 5'11'' Law and slighty taller Van Der Beek.
Anonymous said on 5/Jan/06
Go by what the man said, average it with your over-estimation, and list him at 5'9.5". It's just a joke that someone would see him as 5'11". He is not even trying to lie himself. Listen to his quote. List him at 5'9", or inflate it a bit, but 5'11" is silly. I hope the editor meets him one day just so he can see for himself that Jude Law is shorter than average.
No one said on 20/Dec/05
Most people don't know there own heights, and can't tell other people's heights in comparison to themselves. So all this 'I saw Jude, i am 5'9" but much taller than him' crap means nothing. Truth is, you are probably 5'7" and have never met him.
stAs said on 20/Dec/05
hey Britop! wash your eyes, or maybe you have problem, wear spectacles in this case. he's deffinetely 180-182cm not less, i don't see what evidents you have to prove that his 174cm,
UNK said on 16/Dec/05
hey Britpop, 5'8.5" is not "very very short"... what world are you livin in?
Britpop said on 15/Dec/05
5'10" is too much, I'm sorry. This guy is a hottie but very very short. 5'8.5".
D. Ray Morton said on 13/Dec/05
"'Well, if you're the epitome of perfection you must be above 6ft'

Yeah, I was gonna say...
Anonymous said on 11/Dec/05
We know Hollywood usually gives actors an inch or two on their listings...I have found no quote by Jude himself claiming he was more than 5'10
MD said on 11/Dec/05
But Rob, we have more evidence pointing to 5'9"/5'10" than 5'11"
Anonymous said on 11/Dec/05
Why would Jude Law short change himself two times in a row if he was indeed actually 5'11?
MD said on 10/Dec/05
Wow, well that's pretty much all we need, and he may even be fudging and inch there. But, this would be a good compromise, for now.
Anonymous said on 10/Dec/05
Hmm...If Jude is reported as to admiting he is both 5'9 and 5'10 i think its probably a safe bet that he is no shorter than 5'9 and not really about 5'10...perhaps hes somewhere between 5'9 and 5'10 then...Has Jude actually ever stated he was 5'11 before?

Editor Rob
his CV from his agency gives him 182cm...I am not sure about accuracy we've got 5ft 9, 5ft 10 and his agency 182cm...
LMAO said on 10/Dec/05
"Well, if you're the epitome of perfection you must be above 6ft"
CelebHeights Editor said on 10/Dec/05
From 2002, the Guardian...

"Ripley director Anthony Minghella did call you "unbearably handsome", I say, and in Gattaca you are supposed to be the perfect physical specimen.

He becomes incoherent with embarrassment, bless him. "Apart from being 5ft 10in, huuuugh, huuuugh, huuuugh."

He splutters some more. What's wrong with five 10? "Well, if you're the epitome of perfection you must be above 6ft. I dunno, what d'you... if you think the answer to that isn't, who's going to say... well, I think that myself. I don't think that myself. It's one of those things, I stick my head in the sand but it just doesn't register in what I call my reality, my conventionality, do you know what I mean?"
ii said on 15/Nov/05
Face it, he's 5'9", like he said.
Mario Nariano said on 14/Nov/05
His personal CV says 182 cm so face it.
I believe that a couple of month ago he was listed here also as 182cm.
Some poeple should admit that he is 182 cm and that the 175 was just a joke of him.

Editor Rob
the first height here was 182cm yes, and that is the height from his agency...
dan casio said on 12/Nov/05
so is he 5'9'' like he said in Allure, or 5'11''???
Anonymous said on 8/Nov/05
That's only 4" taller. he is only 4" taller than Sadie. I believe he is between 5'8" and 5'9" and wears heeled boots and lifts to commonly be seen as 5'10".
ii said on 3/Nov/05
He looks 5'8" or 9".
UNK said on 3/Nov/05
Well, 4" taller than 5'3" is 5'7". I think we all agree he is taller than that, right? Maybe 5'11" is a stretch, but he is at least 5'9". Look again at him next to Frost. In most of those pics he looks more than 4" taller, and their footware are comparable.

"Your love is truly blind". Believe me I have no love for Jude Law, just don't think he is under 5'9".
What said on 2/Nov/05
He so does look 5'9". I can't believe that anyone thinks he LOOKS taller. He's a squirt, man.
What said on 2/Nov/05
Sadie Frost is shorter than samantha morton. Sshe is only 5'3" mximum. Jude is only 4" maximum taller. I'm sorry. He will never be 5'11".
What said on 2/Nov/05
Hardly, friend. Your love is truly blind. Jude looks only 3 inches taller at maximum. I'm sorry. He is 5'8" or 9". Those are perfect pictures. Amazing how much shorter celebs are when they are caught off-guard. Oh, And Sadie is notoriously only 5'3.5"
UNK said on 2/Nov/05
Celeb Editor has Frost at 5'4.5" (lets give her 5'4"). In your pics Law is looking at least 5-6" taller, putting him over 5'9".
Anonymous said on 1/Nov/05
Jude Law and the 5'3" Sadie Frost. :
Anonymous said on 1/Nov/05
I actually have seen him and I believe he is under 5'9". He was very very short. And I am just at 5'8".
UNK said on 31/Oct/05
Well Anonymous, the reason is because he just doesn't look 5'9" and most every site lists him higher. He seems to be playful and elusive about his height... he made a sarcastic remark to the Guardian also.

Who knows, maybe he is 5'9.75" and rounds down.
Anonymous said on 31/Oct/05
What is the point of being on a site like this if you don't even take jude's own word. I doubt he was being a wise-ass. If he wanted to be funny he would say sometging dramatic, like "5'2" or 6'5". Please. The guy is 5'9". I'm sorry. Just look at him. Please. He's tiny tiny.
UNK said on 30/Oct/05
He may have been being a wise-ass when he said he was 5'9". If Omar Epps is 5'10.5", than law is definitely 5'11". Law is taller than Epps in every scene they do together in Alfie... actually, by more than an inch. I was surprised to find out Epps is not 5'8" - 5'9".
Anonymous said on 25/Oct/05
I went to school with Portman. She is 5'. Here she is 5'4" tops (with the heels on. Jude remains to be the 5'9" that he says he is. Not what you want him to be. Who would lie about being 5'9" when they are really 5'11". please.
Anonymous said on 25/Oct/05
Okay. i am 5'8", almost, amd I stood next to Jude Law when I saw Christian Slater in a play in London. Jude Law was just as tall as me, no taller. He is 5'8" for sure. People who have crushes on him just want to think he's taller. Trust me, Tiny. But still pretty hot.
Nats said on 24/Oct/05
again in those pics from UNK, mick jagger is closer to the lens and the photographer, not to mention he's leaning forward. the picture is taken from above and jude law is standing behind....can you really compare both heights? tsh tsh...
Nats said on 20/Oct/05
for god's sake...! who cares if he's 5'9" or 5'11"? i mean is that like so crucial? i had the bloke standing next to me. he was wearing nothing but flat shoes and i'm 5'10, pretty tall for a girl and he was definitely taller than me. another thing you do is measure his height from pictures which is a complete mistake and could never lead to an accurate assumption, because myself being a photographer and all those who know the angle from where a picture is taken, the type of lense and the position the subject is stading makes their size distort considerably. even when next to somebody else, if the other subject is taken from a different angle by the camera or if it's in motion. totally non sense,....
Anonymous said on 17/Oct/05
heres a pic of jude with daniel craig, craig is listed as 5'11 on here. they looke pretty identical in height, which supports jude being 5'11
Anonymous said on 12/Oct/05
I can rest on this issue now. I stood next to Philip Seymore Hoffman through an entire Beck show. I am just at 5'8". I was wearing converses, and he was in running shoes and a good inch shorter than me. I really did see the hair pattern on the top of his head. He is tops 5'7". No question. Here he is next to Jude, confirming that Jude is only about 5'9" (and I bet Jude's in lifts).
Anonymous said on 12/Oct/05
Jude said he was 5'9", psychos.
Anonymous said on 12/Oct/05
what is this obsession with downgrading Jude Law. He easily looks 5'11" to me. i think people are just hating. I"m sorry, but if you notice, it's all MEN who are downgrading him. he
Bleemo said on 11/Oct/05
as if 5ft9 is tiny lol
Anonymous said on 11/Oct/05
Jude and Natalie Portman: Natalie is about 5' in reality. Even if she is 5'2", Jude can't convinve anyone that he tops 5'9" without slipping the world a roofie.
Anonymous said on 11/Oct/05
why if Jude said he was 5'9" in an interview do you keep wondering if he is taller. Is his word not enough to end the fantasy of a couple more inches on the tiny stud?
Anonymous said on 10/Oct/05
Jude must be 5'9" then. He will never be 5'11". The dude just is small.
CelebHeights Editor said on 8/Oct/05
Ok, I seen Jude's CV. It lists him as 70kg and 182cm, or 5ft 11 3/4.
What said on 29/Sep/05
Gwyneth Paltrow is quite clearly 3 or four inches shorter than Jude Law. She is also three or four inches shorter than 5'10" Anna Maolva, Miss Russia 1998. That leaves her at 5'6"-5'7.5" and Jude Law at 5'8" and 5'10" with his lifts. Check it out:
mytwocents said on 2/Sep/05
I'm not going to get into a goofy argument ( I feel silly enough making the 2 comments I did make) so this is my last post, but I saw the same movie and never for a moment had the impression Josh Hartnett was short with short legs. All I am saying is that Jude Law, in "my" view, is no 180 and in fact another person who saw this pic (on another site) commented on his seeming shortness, so at least someone else agrees with me.
Anonymous said on 1/Sep/05
mytwocents: I try not to look at pictures of a lone person and estimate, based on my eye judgement, how tall he is. I once saw a scene in Hollywood Homocide where Josh Harnett looked short standing alone. He looked no more than 5-9, with short legs, yet we know he is much taller. Now that I think about it, ways like "his legs look short" are pretty inaccurate (considering we want to estimate heights to the inches). Try this: take a normal-sized action figure, and try to estimate its height to 2 mm accuracy. In fact, try to estimate its height to the 1 cm accuracy (still difficult).
fasulo said on 28/Aug/05
dear leonari in this wonderful site we are not doing a battle-tall actors against short- or to confess our little stupid comp
lexes,but we are trying to guess smart next comment,please
mytwocents said on 23/Aug/05
I realize there is no one else there; I was looking at his legs. Maybe it is not that obvious to others, but to me they looked pretty short for someone who is thought to be nearly 6' tall. I can be generous and agree with his claimed 5'9, but I think it is more likely he is 5'7. Just my opinon though!
Anonymous said on 21/Aug/05
mytwocents: maybe you've linked to the wrong picture, there's no one there to compare Jude Law against, except the car (anyone know how tall that car is? the label isn't shown, but perhaps someone can recognize what car it is)
mytwocents said on 20/Aug/05
Can anyone look at the following shot and say he is 5'11?
leonari said on 20/Aug/05
Fasulo you are not too smart are you?? If an actor has talent and is as good looking as Jude Law or Mel Gibson why not cast them even if they are short? And Jude Law is a hell of an actor, so is Gibson and even Tom Cruise had a couple of excellent performances!! JAMES DEAN was around 172 cm tall-short whatever. One of the best actors of all time,a genius!! Dustin Hoffman, Michael J. Fox, Ben Stiller...the list goes on and on and on... camera can do a lot for the height of a person , so can lifts but can you fake the expression a good actor has while playing a dramatic scene as if it was reality? Or can make up help making an ugly guy(maybe like you are, but you think : what the hell I'm with the ladies not in art you...) into a beautiful person?? NO...So please take your discriminating stuff somewhere else.
Sticks said on 20/Aug/05
delfonic, you seem to be ignoring the possibility that differences in lifts in movies could mislead us. You think you know Damon is shorter than Law by watching The Talented Mr. Ripley and that that is proof of something. I disagree. I can account for the evidence that you think makes Law 5'9" with lifts and by pointing out that we don't know the heights of the stars (Paltrow, Roberts, etc.) you're comparing him to. You can't explain to me why there are sightings of him under 5'9". You think you're getting the truth from watching the movies and you aren't, because you're comparing a bunch of unknowns. Mel Gibson isn't taller than Sigourney Weaver but you could be tricked by into believing he is.

Fasulo, you think it's ridiculous to believe Law and Gibson are short, and I think it's ridiculous to ignore all of the people who've seen them and say that they're short. I didn't understand your reference to Gulliver's Travels. You're over-estimating your ability to determine whether a person is proportioned like a man of average height. There's a huge amount of variation in proportion at any height. Nothing about Law's proportions prevents him from being 5'6.5". You're really, really wrong about the difficulty of finding stand-ins that are around 5'6.5". It's an uncommon male height but nothing freakish, and since he almost certainly wears lifts in movies, it would be easy to hire someone taller and lift them less. It doesn't seem like a big practical problem and it certainly isn't evidence that he's taller. I didn't understand the rest of your post well, but I don't think Hollywood is out to get us. I do think they're working to deceive us in ways and if you don't then why is it that listed heights are so often higher than the actual heights of the stars? I don't think Hollywood's height lies are a big deal. It doesn't hurt me that they're lying. I just find it fascinating. You asked, "why cast short men, and it's a great question. Whatever the answer is, Hollywood is short. People in the know say it over and over again.
MessyHair said on 20/Aug/05
Sticks, Sienna Miller is a couple of inches or so taller than Sadie Frost (who is closer to 5'4" than 5'5") so her listed height of 5'6" seems accurate. I can see the dispute you have over Jude Law being 5'11" but he is still a good few inches taller than Sienna, so 5'9.5-10" would be my guess. I promise you Sticks I don't want to make an enemy of you but I also think Gwyneth Paltrow is an easy 5'9"er ;)

Yes this is a fun site but also - unfortunately - makes for compulsive reading; yesterday in addition to checking dozens of heights I also read the Yao Ming thread - I don't even know who the bloke is! My excuse for staying in is that the weather has turned bad. Not that I'd want to be seen out in public with my hair in this state............
FASULO said on 19/Aug/05
I would say only a thing dear Sticks.sorry,but it's just ridicolous saying Law is 5'6",Gibson the same thing,and of consequence all the others or that you are a new Gulliver in lilliputian hollywood,simply for practical is simply an average man,as the majoriy of other actors,but absolutely not under 5'9"...why?because he's normal limbs on a normal body-1)it is impossible misunderstanding a 5'6" with a 5'11" limbs if you has anatomical knowledges through screen too.2)today it would be very problematic casting actors under 5'7",because there are a lot of snags,think for example to finding doubles or extras or for the same tall colleagues!it would be very hard find so short similar people today with world average height that is 5"9".3)why cast short men if height is a so predominant attribute especially for actors or models cathegory?Infact what kind of dreams or illusions,the most important cinema means,could be created by a short man today where all young are above this height?sticks,cinema isn't a total conspiracy against people,but simply an industry that has worked very well in 100 years
MessyHair said on 19/Aug/05
I've happened accross this thread and degraded myself somewhat in my own eyes by reading it ALL in one sitting! Sticks, just out of interest, what is your own height? You seem a pretty vociferous contributor towards what I deem to be a fun site.
Sticks said on 19/Aug/05
delfonic, anonymous, ricardo... It's possible to be fooled by the camera. We've never seen him. Why are there 5'8" and 5'6.5" sightings if he's taller? Why do you think someone would say he's "fricking short and tiny like a little boy"? He's thin but not emaciated. A slim 5'9" man is not fricking short and tiny like a little boy. Mel Gibson appears a believable 5'11-6' on screen but he isn't that tall in real life. The I've-seen-him-in-movies evidence is meaningless. People who are good at tricking us tricked us. Listed heights are lies (like Omar Epps' 5'10.5").

A guy who saw him from 3m in sandals said he wasn't a mm over 170cm and said he'd bet his house on it. And you guys think he underestimated Law's height by 2.5" because he's thin? A slim build makes you look taller, not shorter. If he's 5'9" why doesn't he look even close to 5'9" in motorcycle boots with 5'2-ish Sienna Miller? All the evidence is consistent with 5'6.5". Lots of it is inconsistent with 5'9".
Sticks said on 18/Aug/05
Anonymous, Tom Cruise is around 5'3.5". For the height of any actor that I've looked into, Rob's height was too high, sometimes above heights actors had claimed for themselves (e.g., Stiller, Pitt, Gibson and Law have all at one point or another claimed lower heights than the heights Rob lists). If you want the truth, you're better off to think about the evidence on your own and make up your own mind. All anybody has is evidence.

Ricardo, I seriously doubt the authenticity of the 5'11" sightings, but he could wear well designed footwear with 4" lifts and wear his hair in a way that made some people overestimate his lifted height by an inch or so. There are lots of ways he could disguise the extra long legs. A coat or suit jacket that goes over top of his waist, and putting his hands in his pockets could mask the disproportion. That's why Brad Pitt has his hands in his pockets so often in pictures. He could definitely be 5'6.5".
Anonymous said on 17/Aug/05
If he's 5'6.5, then how short is tom cruise?
Keep on extending the trend to still shorter actors (like david spade, seth green) and it becomes bizarre. Almost all the height listings on this site will need to be lowered 4 or 5 inches if he is 5'6.5.
Sticks said on 16/Aug/05
Rob, I checked out the pictures. We've seen more than one full length shot of Law and Craig Daniel looking very similar in height. I don't know who the guy is in the second picture, but I know that he's tall and he's way taller than Craig Daniel in every full length picture where they're together. Don't know how tall the old man is supposed to be, but we can't see the feet so it would be weak evidence no matter what. Pictures without the feet visible should never have convinced you that Jude Law was under-reporting his height. Stars wouldn't risk it and I don't think evidence this shabby would influence me. If you have pictures with feet, okay, I'd take a look and measure and consider, but there's nothing here.

I think height estimates are generally pretty good. If you look at the spread of sightings of relatively short basketball players, they're in pretty tight groupings. I looked at Iverson and Nash and the sightings for those guys were all within 2" of eachother. The hardest people to estimate are the very short or tall because you use your own height as a ruler and the further away the harder it is to determine. A group of sightings is high quality evidence. Pictures of stars without their feet showing are rotten evidence.

Good Names Are Taken said on 11/Aug/05
Doesn’t Jude ever go to the beach, a swimming pool, or a change room? Somebody must have seen him barefoot!

Sticks: *curious* How does liking Jude explain why SC is baffled about his height? ;] Don’t you mean to say that “SC is PRETENDING to be baffled, not wanting to accept your words because he likes Jude?” But he doesn’t sound as if he likes Jude anyways (don't know why you thought otherwise).
Sticks said on 9/Aug/05
SC, whoa, you're pretty sensitive to feel so harshly attacked when I just offered an explanation as to why you might be "baffled". Don't be upset by it. I just don't see why, given the evidence, you should be baffled by Law's height. No big deal. No yelling. Sure, lots of heights on the board should be lowered, but whatever. I think a lot of people think of this site as a game of convince-rob-of-something. I don't. The evidence gathers, we talk about it and draw conclusions. I'm always willing to discuss stuff with Rob but he generally stays above the fray. I don't care if Rob makes Law 6'3". It has nothing to do with what I like about this stuff. But if you want to try to convince him of something, the best of luck to you. ;)
SC (aka "Anonymous" from the previous post) said on 9/Aug/05
whoa, you are pretty defensive. I only referred to Jude Law as a 5'8 guy, and you already think I'm "resisting your obvious explanation because I like him so much." If I said he was 5'10, then you'd probably be yelling your head off at me. I guess you aren't yelling at the editor guy (for listing Jude Law as 5'11) because you want to come across as friendly so he'll listen to you.
I was saying that, if he's actually much shorter than listed (like your proposed 5'6 1/2), then the heights for several other actors (especially Vin Diesel) should also be lowered. For example, someone like Tom Cruise might well be 5'4 but appear like 5'7 or sometimes 5'8 using similar shoes/lifts as Jude Law. And as for even shorter actors like Seth Green, well, we'll let him have a 5'3 out of pity ;)
Anonymous said on 7/Aug/05
lol Sticks, you sound pretty angry for someone in a trivial debate about an actor’s height. You must be taking this pretty seriously.

This guy’s height is really baffling. Sometimes he looks average compared to other celebrities. Other times, he wears shoes with tiny heels and yet still manages to look tall. That post in here by "Shoester" convinced me that there's no way he can fit in big lifts into those shoes. Still, I don’t know, these lift designers are crafty (maybe Jude Law had surgery to distort his feet so he could fit big lifts into his normal-looking shoes!)
But then if a 5'8 guy like him can make himself look 5'11 wearing normal-looking shoes, then Vin Diesel must be getting like 5+ inches out of those huge cowboy boots! Tom Cruise is probably using the same lift techniques as Jude Law, giving him an extra 3 inches, then that'd make Tom 5'4, lol.
Anonymous said on 4/Aug/05
"Measure them from floor to head top. Simple. They're standing right beside eachother. Just try it. It's exactly how we measured Paltrow and Affleck with decent agreement. Do it, report the difference in height and the error, you nameless coward. Or don't."
Measuring their picture height has more errors: do you measure from the person's right heel, left heel, right tip (of foot), left tip, "middle" of feet, ...? Why do that when you could just use a straight edge of your monitor and draw a line from Paltrow's head to Law's head? That way you can directly measure the difference (still not taking into account the tilt of the picture).

"I'm a strange, posting-an-embarrassing-amount-about-a-celebrity's-height guy, but at least I know it. Come on, man! It's been a month and you've typed the pages of words and then some. I'm glad to see you go, but to pretend you were above it?"
Yep, I sure got carried away. And no, I'm not "above it"; I'm just willing to admit that I've been wasting too much time talking about one celebrity's height, but don't mind me, you have fun debating on. Glad that discussion at the Paltrow thread is over (I see you've taken my advice and fired another rebuttal at me in there; you must be feeling pretty fulfilled now I bet). Hopefully I've answered your final concern with this post. Since you seem eager to end this as well, then no more posts from me if you don't mind.
Anonymous said on 2/Aug/05
"True or False: Law and Paltrow are the same height in those shoes within any modest estimate of the error."
In that picture you posted where they are sucking their lips, Law is still taller. Enlarge the picture slightly, scroll down, and use the edge of your monitor (which I presume is straight). Top of Paltrow's head is close to Law's hairline. Also, look at the patterns on the wall -- the picture is slightly slanted in favour of Paltrow. Imagine rotating the picture counterclockwise just slightly (until the vertical lines are truly vertical). Most of the lines of the wall are blocked, but the leftmost vertical line is clearly slanted. Also, looking at these series of pictures (, Law is slightly taller in almost every picture.

"Because, like everyone else, you have an intuitive idea of the height you'd lose in the same pose. You adjust for height difference and you have an estimate. You just sound clueless on this point."
I remember you agreeing (quite a while ago) that we cannot rely on our intuition and judge what "an inch" of distance looks like in a picture. We agreed that we must use some reference (like your 6cm eye-to-eye distance) and a ruler. Now, you are insisting that we can intuitively estimate the amount of height lost due to bad postures (to 0.5 inch accuracy). Our intuition must have improved quite a lot since then.
How do you know, in the Affleck-Paltrow picture, that Paltrow isn't hunching her back as well? You don't, because the shot is taken from her front. Before you start something about me bringing up that picture, I'll repeat that I think the Affleck-Paltrow picture has too many uncertainties to be useful, and so I'll ignore it from now on.

Try not to rely on "intuition." I've seen many instances where somebody sees a picture of person A standing beside person B, and concludes that "B looks taller than A" when in fact it's the other way around plain and simple in the picture. Now, you'd think a normal person with normal eyes will be able to pick out the taller person in a picture, but intuition just can't be trusted here. Now, when bad posture arises, how can one possibly say "if he unhunches and stands up perfectly straight, he'll get an extra 1.5 inches, but if she stands with her legs together and straightens up, she'll only get an extra 1 inch?" (the numbers are hypothetical; the difference 1.5 - 1 = 0.5 is your difference)
But, if you still insist that you could estimate penalties so conveniently, go ahead. Don't try to convince me though; I'll be gone (hopefully) after this post.

"why not be a sport and pick a name to prevent unnecessary misunderstandings?"
I thought I'll be reading your posts rather than responding to them by now. But apparently you have a few extra questions. Hopefully I've answered those. This stuff is interesting sometimes, but I don't want to type pages of words (and waste who knows how much time) about one single celebrity's height, and I think neither do you. I've had my fill for now; you go ahead and keep posting, if you still aren't bored by now.
Again, if you have any more posts/questions for me, then put them ALL out in ONE coherent post. If not, then consider me gone.
Shoester said on 1/Aug/05
Looking at his shoes, I think it
Anonymous said on 30/Jul/05
Others reading our ("Sticks" and "Anonymous") posts will be wondering what
Anonymous said on 30/Jul/05
I think your post was meant for me.

"You estimated the posture penalty in the Craig-Paltrow and Paltrow-Affleck shots. Did you do the experiment or not?"
In the Craig-Paltrow picture, I said there is max 2 inch difference when they are in those respective postures (NOT after correcting for posture).
In the Paltrow-Affleck picture, I didn
Sticks said on 28/Jul/05
GoingOff, if you're the poseur-formerly-known-as-Anonymous, why didn't you answer my questions about the height difference and errors in the Law-Paltrow pictures? Why didn't you tell me whether you did that Paltrow-Affleck posture penalty experiment? How could you be sure Craig David wasn't more than two inches taller than Paltrow based on the beach picture? Not on-topic enough for you? Or are you a coward afraid to admit the truth: that Paltrow and Law are the same height within the error in those shoes in those pictures, that you estimated the posture penalties in the David-Paltrow picture in exactly the same way we both did in Paltow-Affleck, that you lied about your experiment and misrepresented the results. You've also implicitly estimated a posture penalty in the Paltrow-Law pictures in spite of your phoney horror that anyone would dare make an estimate by taking a look at a picture.

On Charles, Law and Kidman, do you think Law might be wearing lifts? I'd expect an actor with a height image to maintain would wear lifts at a public event. Kidman is conscious of the camera. In a bunch of pictures with Law, one of which Rob linked to, Kidman spends a lot of time ducking her head in laughter, distancing herself from Law and, in one, clearly bending at the knees for the shot. I don't know how tall she is, but I don't think that picture tells us much.

You feel free to call me a genius if that's what floats your boat, but I'm not asking for it. As I've said, someone who thinks wave-particle duality is the exclusive province of geniuses needs to re-evaluate his self-appointed role as the enlightener of the ignorant masses.
StopGoingOffTopic said on 27/Jul/05
Goodness Sticks, you must be really proud of yourself to talk about your "single-slit experiments" or whatever. Yes okay, we'll call you a Genius with a capital "G" if that makes you happy. Now try to stay on topic.

Anyways, that picture CelebHeights Editor pointed out shows that Jude may be pretty honest with his 5ft9, unless Charlie is wearing lifts. But Nicole's height is interesting. She's only as tall as Jude when she's in high heels (, so if Jude is really 5ft9 compared to Charlie, what does that make Nicole? I think either Nicole isn't really that tall or Charles is hiding some lifts in those shoes.
Sticks said on 27/Jul/05
You wrote: I wasn't the one to fake a genius and use jargon like "wave-particle duality"

Anyone who would come to this board to walk amongst the people and
Anonymous said on 25/Jul/05
Law looks 175cm (if Charles is 177), but then Kidman there looks pretty short as well. She doesn't look 179cm + heels (it's a formal occasion, so I think she's wearing heels), even taking into account her bending forward slightly.
guy from paris said on 25/Jul/05
I've seen pictures of Jude and Ethan Hawk during a junket. Jude was clearly 1 inch smaller than Ethan... On the other and he looked as tall as Joseph fiennes in Stalingrad (6'1'')...
Sticks said on 23/Jul/05
Anonymous, nice of you to grant yourself the last word. I'll grant myself the same thing. Geometry works with proofs. Formal logic works with proofs. Proof exists in the purest sense possible. I didn't talk about "proof" in the first place. You brought it up. I talked about "conclusive demonstration" and science definitely believes in conlcusive evidence. Ask your profs and TAs or google it. I didn't ask you for geometry-grade proof of anything. I mentioned "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "a balance of probabilities" to give other standards of cetainty that you could have met but didn't. Disconfirmation is real as you should be able to understand with the prediction about a particular electron's behaviour in a single slit experiment. I don't care if you want to talk about rocks and not electrons, you should understand that disconfirmation is possible. Don't pretend your failure was the result of philosophical impossiblities when it's just a lack of evidence.

It's funny that you'd wonder why I'm persisting in this line of conversation when I'm responding to you. Why are you persisting, having said good-bye? Miss your bus? Honestly, you could have written more on a hundred topics and said things as irrelevant as you have all along and I would've ignored it. But I *can't stand* quantum mechanics poseurs. People like you, with the most superficial pseudo-knowledge of modern physics who try to strut like they understand it, and tell eveyone about its consequences for our understanding of the world. It's the very calling card of the intellectually dishonest.

You didn't say you were ignoring the posture penalities even though it would have been easy to say it. You said, "There is no difference due to posture." It's still not clear at this point whether you were lying about having done the experiment or lying about not doing it, but I don't care. Anyhow, don't let me keep you. Your bus is coming.
Anonymous said on 23/Jul/05
"You say, "By definition, nothing can be proved." LOL! I'd love to see that definition. "Conclusive demonstration" is a term used in science, medicine and engineering. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard people have worked with for a long time."
I don't know why you would continue on with an irrelevant discussion, but since you asked, here's one definition:
When scientists say "we have conclusively proved this 100%," they are being practical. It's ridiculous to say "we are 99.99999999999999999999% sure" or "we are very very very very very very ... very very very very confident about this." Note the expression "proof beyond REASONABLE doubt," not "proof beyond ABSOLUTE doubt." Interesting huh? The idea that nothing can be proved beyond absolute doubt is not mine; they are thoughts shared by my profs, TA's, scientists. Here's another link (, where it is emphasized in BOLD and ITALICS: "nothing can be proved or disproved in science." If you want to know WHY, consider this point: we humans detect our environment using only our five senses; if we can "prove" something beyond doubt, then we must arrogantly assume that our senses give us an 100% accurate picture of reality. We must assume that what we sense is not distorted in ANY SLIGHTEST way and is COMPLETELY accurate. Next time, when someone mentions "proof," it means that they are so confident about a statement that it's only sensible to say it is "proof" (in fact, I do that too). Now if "proof beyond REASONABLE doubt" was your definition of proof, then of course there is such a thing as proof. Btw, I didn't ask you to prove that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality -- I mentioned a rock, not an electron.
Again, I don't know why you'd persist on with this irrelevant discussion (maybe to try to gain some pride). I think even if you don't believe what I just said, it's easy to see that there is no way to conclusively "prove" that your height range (or anyone's) for celebrities is 100% right or wrong using pictures (unless if someone claims, say, Jude Law is 7 foot, or 4 foot, then that's obvious).

Also, I didn't calculate a posture penalty of 0.0 for Affleck and Paltrow. It's called "ignoring posture differences," because it's much too difficult to get a number out of that. What would you do when two people's postures are both sloppy and it's hard to see who has the worse posture? You'd probably just forget about posture like anyone. That's what I'm doing here -- I'm taking posture out of the equation. Of course, without considering posture, the error margin expands. But what can we do -- errors are unavoidable.

As mentioned in my last posts, it's time I left this discussion (you are having a lively debate w/ Ack). You don't need to respond to this message, Sticks (I wrote this message to answer your questions). And if you still want to argue about the science-having-conclusive-proof thing, this is not the place to do so -- find some other forum; there are many others who share this view, are more willing to debate, and have more time on their hands to talk about this. About the Affleck-Paltrow picture, perhaps we could agree that the errors due to their postures are too big to give a useful comparison and estimate of Paltrow's height.
Sticks said on 23/Jul/05
ACK, take it easy. I believe you're giving us a sincere estimate based on an actual sighting. Before you came along, I don't think anybody had said he was shorter than the 5'7.5" I gave him at the low end. The fact that he was in sandals makes your estimate even more relevant.

I definitely can't guarantee that Pitt's not 5'10" based on those pictures. But how tall is Pitt if Law's 169-170cm? If Paltrow was only getting two inches out of her shoes and Law was getting 3" out of his, and if perfect posture gave her an extra inch over him (which seems like a lot), she'd be 2" taller, 5'8.5 or 5'9". If Pitt's an inch taller than her he could be 5'10". Using your Law height, numbers I actually believe and other evidence, I think my best guess for Pitt would be 172cm.
Sticks said on 22/Jul/05
Anonymous, I explained to you my justification for giving Affleck an extra half inch. It's an estimate and apparently a decent one because it agrees so well with yours, the One True Posture Penalty of Zero. I could add that posture would penalize the taller person more, other things being equal. It's stupid for you to talk about me assigning posture penalites to suit myself when I used a posture penalty you explicitly accepted with Craig David (whose height we don't know), and only estimated it .5" differently than you with Affleck. Even if I used your penalty, Paltrow would still be in my range, but if lying about my views and how the math works out makes you feel better, you do what you have to. And since I *created* Paltrow's range from my (perhaps overly) generous estimation of Law's height and the picture we discussed, it's definitely not the case that I tried to make the posture penalty suit myself. I doubt I'll convince Rob of anything. If I can't get him to change Stiller's height, I sure won't get him to change Law's.

Interesting sidenote: You say I've 'fabricated' height estimates, but how did you get the posture penalty for Paltrow-Affleck? I thought you didn't actually do that experiment and that you were being sarcastic. What a tangled web we weave, eh?

You say, "By definition, nothing can be proved." LOL! I'd love to see that definition. "Conclusive demonstration" is a term used in science, medicine and engineering. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard people have worked with for a long time. Just a word for you on wave-particle duality, etc.: stop talking out your ass. Since you think wave-particle duality makes the concept of disconfirmation inoperative, you, my nameless friend, are the one who doesn't have a clue. The reason physicists had to accept the counter-intuitive concept was that you could conclusively demonstrate the wave-like properties of particles and the particle-like properties of waves. If you say, 'An electron is a particle, not a wave, and it will, therefore, have no wave-like properties,' I can disconfirm your theory with single-slit experiments. Even if conclusive demonstration was too much for your imagination to handle, you could have shown convincing evidence that I was wrong or that on a balance of probabilities I was wrong.

I've already said more than once that those height ranges are estimates based on the evidence, but you've obviously had a tough time understanding and remembering what I've said throughout.

And ACK isn't the only one who has estimated that Law's short. Rob asked someone who seemed reasonable how tall he was and the guy said 5'8". Law admits people always say he's "really short". Like this guy: "I saw Jude Law at Heathrow, he is tiny, I mean so fricking short and tiny. Like a little boy." Why doesn't this happen to Ethan Hawke? If you get some height ranges and a name I'd love to hear from you again someday. :)
ACK said on 22/Jul/05
Yes Sticks, I might be wrong about Pitt. But i'm pretty sure about Law. There was a crowd looking at him when I saw him, and all these people began to comment how short he looked in sandals. Everybody can be fooled by pictures.Howerver, Can you guarantee that Pitt is only 5.9 by comparing these pics? I don't think so. But I do accept to my self that if had'n seen Law, I'd think He is 5.10-5.11.
It's hard to believe that Law is short. In the picture with paltrow, it's hard to get 4 inches out of his shoes too. But I can tell you ten more times. Law is as short as Cruise. Maybe, Law is slightly taller than Cruise. Law is 170 MAX!!!!Cruise 168 MAX! I'm not the one who claim that LAW is Short. Just read this forum and You'll find it out. Law 5.11??? Don`t even think about this. I'd gamble my house for this statement: LAw is 170 MAx!!!!Not even one more millimetre!!!
Anonymous said on 22/Jul/05
Ack, Law is taller than he looks (big head) and Pitt is shorter than he looks.

"Of course I can estimate the posture penalty by looking at the picture, and so can anyone. I have no problem with you modelling their postures and measuring yourself to help you *estimate* their posture penalties. But, having done your little experiment, it would be ridiculous for you to tell me as you did,
mjd said on 22/Jul/05
ack..average height is 5'9 1/2...and jude law looks every bit of those 5 feet 11 inches
Anonymous said on 21/Jul/05
Sticks, Pictures can hide defects in many different ways! Two years ago i saw him and I was tree meters from him.Somebody shouted "The one in sandals is Jude Law!!!!".I saw him very close!. Everybody was astonished to see such a tiny guy. He was 169, 170 MAX! He looks 178-180 cm in movies. Even wearing common shoes. I didn't see pitt. But i can tell you,if U looked the length of his legs and arms U'd realize that they aRe longer than Law's ones. He is 176.5 cm at least !! In the picture Pitt looks the same height as Paltrow because of the angle of the sidewalk. Law looks the same height as Paltrow due to his 4 inches shoes!!!!!! Paltrow is definitely 5'9''.She's a tall woman! IN the picture with law She is 5' 11.5''becasuse of the heels. Look at the posture of law. He is stretched. That's why he looks taller than she. As a result of this, Law is 5-7 + 4 inches shoes= 5.11 The same as Paltrow.
Sticks said on 21/Jul/05
ACK, you've said Jude Law is 5'6.5". Where did you see him in LA? How close were you? This is Law with Gwyneth Paltrow:
This is Paltrow with Brad Pitt:
What height could Gwyneth Paltrow be that would make those two pictures consistent with a 5'6.5" Law and a 5'10.5" Pitt?
ACK said on 20/Jul/05
Come on guys!. It doesn't exist doubt about pitt's heigh. does it? He is taller than average height. 5'10.5'' al least. 5'11'' at most. He isn't 5.9!! That's ridiculous. Have you seen interview with the vampire? Notice there is no scene which Pitt was standing side by side with Cruise. Why? Because Cruise didn't want others to realize he was very short! And He's still very short. He can't grow taller at 40s!!! Cruise is 5'6'' al most!
Sticks said on 20/Jul/05
Anonymous, if I'm desperate for anything it's for you to make a relevant point. I've described myself as "pretty confident" in those ranges but I've never said that there's no possibility that I'm wrong. I've taken what I consider to be the best evidence about those people and estimated their most probable height to the nearest half inch. The inch margin of error on either side covers all of the best evidence that I've seen. I could make the range bigger, but why? You say it's "too restricted" but you show no evidence of that. I could make it one foot on either side of 5'8" for everyone from Garafolo to Tim Robbins, but that would be uninteresting and unnecessary. What sort of error did you attach to your estimation of Candice Bergen's height? You're right here in the mud with the rest of us, you'd just like to think you're not dirty.

Of course I can estimate the posture penalty by looking at the picture, and so can anyone. I have no problem with you modelling their postures and measuring yourself to help you *estimate* their posture penalties. But, having done your little experiment, it would be ridiculous for you to tell me as you did,
Anonymous said on 19/Jul/05
"Admit it: you failed. Now you're trying to win back some lost pride with more bs."
Wow, you sound desperate. If I were you I'd stick to debating instead of changing the subject. But yes, I guess I lost all my precious pride because through this whole debate you've being trying to defend yourself. I've yet to hear an evidence from you that convincingly says Paltrow cannot be over 5-8.5. Like I said, your range is not wrong -- it's too restricted. You seriously think there is no possibility of Paltrow being over 5-8.5? Yet she could well be 5-6.5?

"If you wouldn't give Affleck the extra posture penalty that's fine, but I can and I do."
Yes, and I could equally say that Paltrow is losing half an inch. Please answer this question: are you saying you could estimate posture penalty by looking at a picture? Isn't that even WORSE than my "proposal"? (modelling their postures and measuring the differences) If there is so much error in my ridiculous method, wouldn't there be even MORE error if you simply determined the penalty by looking at two people in a picture?

"I have one question for you. Please answer it. Do you have *any* evidence that demonstrates conclusively that I'm wrong about *any* of the height ranges I've given? (Hint: the answer is 'no'.)"
No amount of evidence is able to demonstrate anything conclusively; it can only suggest what's likely or unlikely. But I'll post up a few reasons why I think Paltrow might be taller (not because I want her to be taller, but because it just seems bizarre if she's not). See the Paltrow thread.

"To help you, I'll repeat my views of four people (all heights are morning heights with perfect posture)."
Are you sure you don't mean night heights? A person is at least 0.5 inch shorter at night. You are really pushing them pretty short.
Sticks said on 19/Jul/05
Anonymous, is this more sarcasm or are you genuinely confused? I said that they're within an inch of eachother, that she's within an inch of 5'7.5" and that he's within an inch of 5'8.5". Anything that's true of their actual heights would have to meet each of those criteria for me to be right. You really should have sorted this out by now (especially since you quoted me saying it in the process of dissing you for not understanding what you were reading). I never said that Pitt was under 5'7.5". Can you not determine the consequences of the three simple constraints that I've repeated several times? I think you're not actually trying to discuss this, you're just being a dick.

My Paltrow-Affleck views add up very well with a half-inch posture penalty as you know. You asked me how tall I thought they were and the observed difference in the picture, and I answered you. You know the math works out. If you wouldn't give Affleck the extra posture penalty that's fine, but I can and I do. Or would you like try to demonstrate that Affleck couldn't possibly be losing an extra half inch to bad posture? You've made lots of attacks now, most petty, some funny-stupid (e.g., maybe Jude Law doesn't know how tall he is). None of them have had any impact on the consistency of my views with the evidence. You couldn't possibly believe at this point that you're making arguments that would prove me wrong. Admit it: you failed. Now you're trying to win back some lost pride with more bs.

I have one question for you. Please answer it. Do you have *any* evidence that demonstrates conclusively that I'm wrong about *any* of the height ranges I've given? (Hint: the answer is 'no'.)

To help you, I'll repeat my views of four people (all heights are morning heights with perfect posture):

Paltrow: [5'6.5", 5'8.5"]
Law, Pitt, Damon: [5'7.5", 5'9.5"]
Law-Paltrow difference: [0,1"]
Pitt-Paltrow difference: [0,1"]
Anonymous said on 18/Jul/05
"I can't think of any sightings of Pitt that said he was 5'7" or less. I've never said that I think he's under 5'7.5"."
You said Paltrow is from 5-6.5 to 5-8.5, and that Pitt is less than 1 inch taller. That means Pitt is from slightly below 5-7.5 to slightly below 5-9.5. Forgot your own words?

"Nothing in the picture with Affleck changes my mind about the range I've given for Paltrow.
a. Paltrow in shoes that give her 2", perfect posture: 5'9.5"
b. Affleck in shoes that give him 1", perfect posture: 6'3"
c. Paltrow/Affleck ratio .932 in the picture (You measured differently, that's fine.)"
that doesn't add up; Paltrow mysteriously lost half an inch (using your own numbers). Perhaps the reason is that you WANT her to be shorter.
MHouillon said on 18/Jul/05
Typical 5'10"-man.
Sticks said on 11/Jul/05
Okay, I'm not seeing a response in the Paltrow thread, but I'll carry on with these posts anyway. Regarding your question 1, I answered that and you should take another look for that answer. Regarding question 2, I told you what I think sightings of Pitt represent and told you to ask another question in the Pitt thread if you wanted to. I can't think of any sightings of Pitt that said he was 5'7" or less. I've never said that I think he's under 5'7.5". And as I've already said, my opinions on Pitt, Damon, Paltrow and Law aren't primarily based on sightings since so few quantify their height and sightings give an upper bound. I explicitly agreed with you about women in high heels and I'm not sure how you missed that, but if Paltrow sometimes wears covered shoes or boots with lifts the upper bound point would still apply to her (I could qualify that more but it's not getting us anywhere without sightings).
Nothing in the picture with Affleck changes my mind about the range I've given for Paltrow.
a. Paltrow in shoes that give her 2", perfect posture: 5'9.5"
b. Affleck in shoes that give him 1", perfect posture: 6'3"
c. Paltrow/Affleck ratio .932 in the picture (You measured differently, that's fine.)

You're saying I don't know anything about error analysis, which really, really hurts my feelings a lot and has convinced me I really don't know anything about it. I've never thought that this line of discussion made a difference because, in any analysis, they're so similar in height in those shoes that whatever difference in height exists between them barefoot is going to have more to do with what they're actually getting from their shoes and posture than from the half inch difference that you see and I don't. And of course there's the shot that shows both of them at the same height again sucking their lips. If you'd like to labour to show me that the error associated with your estimation of their height difference is less than a half inch, be my guest. Be sure to include the error associated with the standard. You think you've got Jude Law's hair and can determine where his skull is to a high degree of accuracy. I don't believe you. They're the same height within the error.

I don't ignore the fact that very tall actresses want to be thought to be shorter. Uma Thurman and Geena Davis are examples of that, but they're in the 6'range. Over some range of heights, women stop adding inches and start subtracting them. We don't know how much Candice Bergen exaggerated her height by in the day, so subtracting an inch tells us very little about how tall she is today. And some of that inch she took away is actual height loss. Cutting to the chase, do either of us know Bergen's height? No. So why belabor it?

Do me this favour: marshall your very best arguments as to why I'm wrong about the people you think I'm wrong about and bring it. Show me inconsistencies I can't account for or something with some weight to it. So far, you've shown me nothing.
Anonymous said on 8/Jul/05
A few questions that you couldn't answer before; perhaps now you have the answers:
1) How many people who saw Paltrow say she is 5-5 or 5-6? (your range for her is 5-6.5 to 5-8.5); btw, Paltrow cannot wear lifts in high heels, so her sited average should be close to her real height
2) How many people who saw Brad Pitt say he is 5-7? (your range is 5-7.5 or less, to 5-9.5)
A new question, you can answer this at the Ben Affleck thread:
3) How tall do you think Affleck is, based on that picture I posted? You said Paltrow looks 5-7 in that picture. Give your estimates for:
a) Paltrow's shoe height
b) Affleck's shoe height
c) the observed difference in height in the picture
Sticks said on 6/Jul/05
Anonymous, I didn't say you used that standard to measure the entire height of a body. But someone who should care for the quality of his ruler clearly dropped the ball. And I do know a bit about errors. For example, I know you could not possibly measure off the distance from the eyes to the top of the head for comparison with the standard in that picture without introducing large percentage errors due to head tilt and hair, let alone the accuracy of 4.5". The result is that your error size is larger than your "measured difference" meaning that even your measures have them the same height within the error.

Your Daniel Craig point goes nowhere. You don't know how tall he actually is, and we at least agree that the actual difference between the two of them could be 2" (I think it could be 2.5", but whatever). If he's actually 5'10", she'd be 5'8". And because you asked me to, I checked the number of times your view of an actor's height contained the qualification 'within an inch': zero. It must have been a coincidence that your typing strength that had allowed you to type "within an inch" so many times before deserted you right when you had to talk about your own views.

Does the Candice Bergen picture show their feet? If it doesn't, it's almost meaningless. Female actors can exaggerate their height even when they're not short, and Julia Roberts is almost certainly an example of this. If you'd rely on a male actor to not under-report his height as heavily as you're now relying on a female actor to not over-report her height, you'd believe Jude Law was 5'9" max. Why do women wear high heels? To seem taller. Do women of above average height wear high heels? Yes. Might Candice Bergen add a little something to her height to be perceived as taller? Sure. We can talk about the Paltrow-Affleck picture in the other thread, but unless you've got some really impressive evidence coming that Law and Paltrow aren't within and inch of 5'8.5" and 5'7.5" respectively, I want to wrap this up.
tybor said on 6/Jul/05
In regards to the paltrow/affleck pick I think her shoes give her no more than a 1/2." Where that puts them heightwise I'll let the mathletes debate. Note to anonoymous and and stick, you're ongoing banter sure has livened up this board. keep up the good work guys. it keeps me coming back.
Anonymous said on 6/Jul/05
Sticks: "I asked you which picture you used too. I want to highlight the fact that you accepted 5
Sticks said on 6/Jul/05
If having a big head causes a person to be seen as shorter, then it
Anonymous said on 5/Jul/05
leonari: "STICKS: guys like you will never understand one basic thing: PEOPLE LOOK TALLER ON SCREEN. Most of the time, if not always. Do you understand this concept ,or?"
I think you were refering to me; STICKS is on "your side." You've missed my point completely though. If I have to repeat myself AGAIN: why would directors let Paltrow LOOK as tall (or almost) as her male co-stars? (I'm thinking it's because they find it difficult to make her look any shorter, due to her height)

Besides, I never said anything like "Law looks 5-11 on screen, so he must be 5-11 in reality." None of my points was based on the fact that he looks tall on screen. Of course we know people look taller on screen, it's common your point was?
Anonymous said on 5/Jul/05
"And should I take it that you won
Sticks said on 5/Jul/05
Law wouldn't have to wear lifts higher than Paltrow's heels to be shorter than her. Re-read the second-last sentence of the first paragraph of my last post you should see why (it's the sum of uncertainties). Paltrow probably increases her height with heels for the benefits of being seen as a taller woman and reduces it with posture in pictures with stars like Damon, Pitt and Law so that they have the height advantage they're "supposed" to have.

I agree with what you said about the average and high heels. Which picture did you get the 1/5 ratio in? Where did you get 5" as a reliable reference value?

On Paltrow and her co-stars, I don't agree, but I don't want to start listing movies and scenes. I think movie evidence is generally bad, but if you've got some stills with these people where you can see their feet I'd be interested to see them.

My estimated heights for these guys aren't based primarily on sightings since there aren't that many that quantify the person's height. "Within an inch" is an uncalculated, estimated error like the kind you put in your lab notebook. I think a 2" error interval is pretty humble stuff for this board. For instance, Drew has authoritatively said that Law is 5
GEKKO BIRD said on 5/Jul/05
Sorry if im beating a dead horse here,but...Its notlike there is this big conspiracy or something. If the guy says hes Five-Nine then hes 5 foot 9 and thats that....THE POINT is its not that big of a deal enough to have arguments over it
leonari said on 5/Jul/05
To ANONYMOUS lat comment. Man you piss me off...honestly. He never said I look 6 feet tall he said "BUT IF I MA FEELING TALL, I say six feet. Plus on screen so much depends on body proportions but you seem to have absolutely no clue about movies nor heights. And what in the world is embarassing for an actor to wear lifts you smarta...It's such a common thing on hollywood write paragraphs of nonsense to point. unbelievable
Mr Klaus said on 4/Jul/05
it's kinda rare that some poeple really think that he is 5'9". I saw Jude 3 month ago and I can tell that this guy is pretty close to 6 ft!
Sticks said on 3/Jul/05
Anonymous, in a post that's still on this page, I said that I believe Law is within an inch of 5'8.5" and that Paltrow's within an inch of 5'7.5". Now you're asking me if I think Paltrow might be an inch shorter than Law. We're having a tough time communicating, I guess.

You're telling me to use the edge of my monitor to compare heights for increased accuracy? For the third time, I'm drawing the line using a photo editor. That line can be drawn at a constant "real" height using the horizontal lines on the pattern in the background. The line I draw is quite straight and both it and the picture can be adjusted vertically. Maybe you don't know what I'm saying, but take it for granted that I understand the value of using a straight line and measuring things, when necessary. I never claimed to know what an inch "looks like". I use the average interpupillary distance as a 6cm ruler when there are shots where people are facing the camera with their eyes visible. I measure the distances, calculate the average, and use the distance as a ruler. I do this using Microsoft Picture It. I don't consider eyeball estimates of height differences to be accurate and never claimed to.

On Paltrow's height, yeah, there would be a normal distribution of estimates of her height based on sightings. I haven't found anything giving eyewitness estimates of her height. My judgement that she's probably around an inch shorter than Law came from the pictures we're discussing and his claim that he's 5'9". You think it was a joke. I think that was his height with conventional rounding and maybe a little bonus. On the Brad Pitt thing, let's move that to the Brad Pitt thread so this doesn't metastasize into a series of essays. Your inaccurate-rulers point is just bad. Jude Law has had his height measured enough times that the average of those measurements represents what other people's averages represent. If anything he'd be more inclined to add an extra inch because it affects his career (at least actors seem to think so) and a small fraction of those who hear his reported height can question it based on eyewitness accounts.

I'm sorry, I'm really confused by your 1/5 ratio. I don't have a difference in height in shoes to measure, so I can't even get started. I'm being sincere. Are you saying that Paltrow's height-above-the-eyes is five times smaller than Law's? I don't know what you're doing or what you're concluding.
Anonymous said on 2/Jul/05
"Moreover, you aren't understanding what you're reading. I said Paltrow was within an inch of 5'7.5" and Pitt was within an inch of 5'8.5" and that they're within an inch of eachother. You think Law is an inch taller than Paltrow in those pictures. I don't, and you've shown me nothing."
Does that mean Paltrow might be 1 inch shorter than Law? Does that mean Paltrow might be only 5-6.5? Your way of "drawing a line past their heads" is very inaccurate. Try using a ruler, or better yet, use the edge of your monitor. This is not a subjective thing, this is a measurement using rulers and a calculator: use something straight and measure the distance in height between Paltrow and Law, then measure the distance between Paltrow's (or Law's) eyes and the top of her/his head, then find the ratio of these two distances. Have you even done that? (if so, what is your calculated ratio? mine is around 1/5, and that's after I've shed off some of Law's hair) Again, never claim that you know what an inch "looks like."

"You still haven't explained what you were getting at with your all-the-rulers-are-different theory. And if Law is 5'11", wouldn't some people estimate that he's 6' or 6'1" on meeting him? Where are these people?"
Here's one: "So 5'11", perhaps even just brushing 6', would be about right." Now it's YOUR turn: how many people who've met Paltrow say she's 5-5 or 5-6? Since she's 5-6.5 to 5-8.5, there must be a distribution around that, right?
Also, how many ppl who've met Brad Pitt say he's only 5-6? Since he could be from 5-7.5 (or even less) to no more than 5-9.5, there must be people that misjudge him, right?

The "inaccurate rulers" thing was to point out that Law might've measured his height with a device that deflated his height. Why do you assume that he has been measured many times by different devices since reaching full height (which could be well in his 20's)? I haven't measured my height for who knows how long -- it's not unusual.

"2. No [I don't think Law is 5-10]."
Then at the VERY least he is 5-9.5 if Paltrow is 5-7.5, right? There is DEFINITELY a height difference in the picture (use the edge of your monitor) -- can you even admit that distance is at least 0.5 inch? (that kind of distances are usually not visible in small pictures, and yet here we can see the distance without zooming in)
Sticks said on 2/Jul/05
Jude Law looks two inches shorter in that picture, Drew. Look at the people on the ends, Paltrow and the bald guy. They're standing straight. Law is leaning into P.S. Hoffman for balance causing him to lean. But the picture means little beacause I think both Damon and Law are up on their toes. I think it's safe to say both Damon and Law wear lifts. Quantify the big head issue. I think it exists, but it's small.
Anonymous said on 1/Jul/05
Anonymous: I told you in some detail in my last post to you how I compared their heights, so I'm not sure why you're asking me how I did it. There's a larger error in meausring the top of Jude Law's head because of all that hair, but if you compare Law and Paltrow using a moveable line drawn on the picture parallel to the lines on the wall behind them, you'll find they're standing at the same height. In some pictures you can measure an inch as a fraction of the distance between pupils, but I didn't do that here because there was no difference in their height. There's another picture in that series where they're sucking their lips or something getting ready for a shot and they're the same height again.

Yes, an optical illusion gives consistent errors, but if there is a big head/low shoulder error, I think it's small. Why don't you quantify it for me? Do you think his head is so much bigger than other people's heads that it would cause them to call a man nearly 6' "really short"? If you doubt that random errors tend to cancel eachother out, I recommend you do some reading on the topic.
Anonymous said on 1/Jul/05
Drew: "Paltrow might claim to be taller because she acts with and has dated men who want to be seen as taller than they are."
If Paltrow is only 5-7.5 (like you said), then are you saying Brad Pitt is SHORTER than 5-8.5? According to what you said on the Brad Pitt board, "He's [Pitt] very similar in height to Gwyneth Paltrow (less than 1" difference)."
But even assuming Paltrow is 5-7.5, Law is still about 5-10 (1.5 inch shoe advantage, plus still 1 inch height difference)
Two questions:
1. How can Brad Pitt be less than 5-8.5 and tried to fool people that he's 6' or even over? (with 3.5-4 inch lifts?)
2. Do you agree that Law is 5-10 if Paltrow is 5-7.5?
Anonymous said on 1/Jul/05
Sorry, quoted the wrong person. Again, quoting Sticks: "The two other guys have crappy posture while Law is ramrod straight and they're still taller."
You STILL insist he's the shortest. I hope you didn't just use your eyes and decided that he "looks shortest."
Again, when you said "Paltrow isn't standing an inch shorter than Law", how did you come to that conclusion? What method did you use? (please don't say you know what an inch "looks like").

About your "random errors canceling out" theory, notice that optical illusion gives CONSISTENT bias. Example: in that same picture we were talking about, Law's head is the biggest out of the three men (and quite a lot bigger than the guy on the left, lol). This is one reason why the guy on the left looks tall and Law looks quite short. Another source of illusion is that Law's shoulders are lower (compared to an average person of his height).
Anonymous said on 29/Jun/05
Quoting Drew: "Of the three men in the picture posted by Pik, Law is the shortest."
If that's what you see, then you probably shouldn't judge heights, lol. Then again, many people are victims of optical illusion. This may account for the reason why people say Law is short. If you couldn't even tell who's the shortest out of the three men when they are standing next to each other, how well do you think people can judge his height to 1-2% accuracy simply by meeting him? An analogy: if you can't tell which of two rulers are longer when they are placed NEXT to each other, then you certainly can't say "This one 'looks' longer." NEVER ever rely on comments like "He looks 1-2" taller/shorter than me."

If Paltrow has 1.5' shoe advantage, and is STILL 1' shorter than Jude Law, then that's about 2.5' difference in height. If Paltrow is really as short as 5'7.5", then Law is 5'10". I even doubt that Paltrow is only 5'7.5" -- why would she inflate her height when she's already so tall?

Furthermore, we must take into account that a person is nearly 1' taller in the morning than at night. When did Law measure his supposed 5'9" height? (assuming he wasn't joking with that comment)
Also, many measuring devices are not accurate -- try comparing a few rulers, I'd be surprised if you found them all to have the same definition of "centimetre" and "inch." Measuring devices have been known to deviate by INCHES at the scale of a person's height.
sticks said on 22/Jun/05
Drew, the important thing is the difference in the amount of lift they're getting above barefoot. Note that Law isn't barefoot. She's getting about 2.5" of height out of the shoes (the height of the heel isn't the increase in height the woman gets- look at where the heel is). He's getting a minimum of 1". But even assuming only a 1" lift above barefoot, she's only getting 1.5" on him (and that's about the difference in their ankle heights). They're the same height in the picture. That would make him 5'8.5". Right? As Rob mentioned at the top of the page, he looks taller because of his thin frame.

Drew said on 22/Jun/05

Even if Paltrow is only 5'7", she is wearing three inch heels, which would make her 5'10", and Jude is still taller than her, which would make him at least 5'11".

Jude simply looks shorter becuase of his abnormally large head, in fact, this is mentioned in the movie Closer, where it is mentioned that Jude's character looks shorter becuase of the size of his head.
sticks said on 20/Jun/05
Another sighting of "180cm" Jude Law:
"I saw Jude Law at Heathrow, he is tiny, I mean so fricking short and tiny. Like a little boy." He must have just been surrounded by very tall men.;action=display;num=1118237123
sticks said on 13/Jun/05
Of the three men in the picture posted by Pik, Law is the shortest. The man said himself he was 5'9". In an interview with the Guardian, he said, "People always go, "God, Jude's really short."" When is that true for a man nearly 6' tall? The explanation for the picture is that Gwyneth Paltrow is not 5'10" as billed. She's clearly shorter since she's his height in the highest heels her feet can bear. Gwyneth Paltrow is within an inch of 5'7.5" and Jude Law is within an inch of 5'8.5".
Stiffelio said on 15/Apr/05
There's no way Jude is close to 6 ft. I saw again Talented Mr. Ripley last night and there are many scenes of him and Damon standing or walking side by side and they look pretty much the same height; sometimes Matt even looks slightly taller. So that put him in the 5 ft 9 range.
J. said on 3/Apr/05
Looking at Gattaca, he does seem a smidgen shorter than Ethan Hawke ... maybe my mind's playing games with me... And I always assumed him to be 5'9" so I doubt he was joking about his height in that magazine profile.
Smoke said on 3/Apr/05
I think he's just short of 6 foot, in other words not quite as tall as Jake Gyllenhaal. There's maybe a cm between them, I compared Jude's height to Regis while he was on Regis and Kelly and Jude did look 5-6 inches taller than 5'6" at best Regis. Jude did look tall next to Regis, but then again, who doesn't?
lookalike said on 3/Apr/05
i think jude is a short guy... he cant possibly be over 6?? jake gyllenhaal is 6ft exactly. if only there was a photo of them together...
tommy said on 19/Feb/05
Jude Law has commented in an interview (Road to Perdition) that Tom Hanks is a very tall man. Now Tom Hanks is around 5 11". So what does that make Mr Law?

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.