Ok as you will be aware from the title im quite new to special editions, just been looking at kingdom of heaven and there is a directors cut available, a reviewer said he/she hated the original cut but loved the directors cut, surely its the same film so how could it make that much of a difference?

The director's cut is 45 minutes longer, adding a lot of substantial material throughout the movie.

Well the Kingdom of Heaven directors cut is more like one of the extended LOTR movie cuts that adds a lot, it's not like an extra 2 minutes to make money kind of directors cut.

The director cut of KOH transforms that movie from a good one to a great one. A lot of extra material that helps move the plot along and develops a few characters. Of course, I have both versions...

Also, the DC of Daredevil changes that movie for the better as well. Look around, read reviews here and ask questions. You'll quickly find out which cuts are the better ones and which ones to avoid (the extra 2 minute jobs, for example!).

--John

Most of the time, a director's cut actually makes the movie better. Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott had to cut those movies under 3 hours because the movies wouldn't get enough airing in one day. Unlike an Unrated cut which pretty much adds nothing to the movie other than a few minutes of useless deleted scenes.

I just finished watching the Unrated Cut of Doomsday and I didn't notice a damn thing that was different.

I rented the theatrical cut of KOH, and was like....meeeh.

Then I saw the Director's cut, and had to run out and get it. I later upgraded it to Blu-ray. Absolutely essential title.

As a general rule, I have found director's cuts of movies to include more story content. If you're just looking for the action scenes or big speech scenes or whatever, those are in the "regular" version. What happens is, a director is given a running time target depending on the kind of movie he/she is making, and the studio's expectations for the movie.

My recommendation is to familiarize yourself with films you like, and begin to learn who was responsible for making them. Once you've done that, then it's nice to see if they have any films that were released in a "Director's Cut" format, which gives you a better chance to decide what you like about him/her (or even to decide that you don't actually like him/her). If you're not in a position to outright buy DVD's to find out if you like a different version (and many of us, myself included, are not), then you should look into some of the myriad rental options. Netflix is great for things like this. Amazon's Unbox and iTunes are newer, digital rental options. Your town may even have a Redbox rental machine nearby; you probably won't find "Director's Cut" versions of DVDs there, but you will have a chance to rent things cheaply to find out whose work resonates with you.

As for deferring to other people's opinions on movies, I'm not a big fan of this. A lot of professional critics tend to look unfairly on mainstream movies, and make too big a deal out of independent films. A lot of casual fans tend to make too big a deal out of mainstream movies, and look unfairly on independent films. You're better off learning about whose work you like, and along the way you'll find that the more you understand about these things, the more sense reviews will make to you. Years ago, I wouldn't have understood what "self-indulgent" or "pretentious" really meant about a movie; now, I know they mean I'm reading a review about "American Beauty" that describes what I think about it.

Ridley described the director's cut as a move from the 'butchered' theatrical release, to 'his movie'.

When Ridley made his anger known about the theatrical release, he said he would release the actual film he made on DVD. I have never watched the theatrical release, I waited on the DC DVD release. It's superb.

BTW OP if you can't see any worth to a director's cut DVD this may not be the forum for you. If you triple dip just to get one 5 minute supplemental and a new DVD cover, this is the place for you.

I appreciated 'his' cut of the film much much more than the theatrical, as did most everyone he decided to take the plunge on trying to watch a new version of this film.

However, one thing I never did understand, was how he couldn't come up with something better for the theatrical cut. If he felt it was butchered... was it due to time constraints? Never heard commentary on this, so I have no idea. Either way, it was cut horribly for a theatrical cut and I think some of the stuff from the deleted 45 minutes that made it end up being good, could have been used as opposed to some other stuff.

For obvious reasons he wasn't very specific, but it was an old fashioned case of studio interfering over the length. So more popcorn could be sold at more daily showings or something.

He was a tad irate because he told them 'Epic' going in, then when it was done they started saying 'we don't need these scenes' and what not. IIRC he wanted an old-fashioned intermission.

I just knew when Ridley was coming out publicly before the theatrical release there had been some old 'Peckinpah-esque' studio bullshit, so I skipped it. Waited on the DVD. This is a case where the DVD is the 'real' cut.

The 4 disc DC release is one of my favorite DVD releases, as to content and packaging also. It's also one of the few Blu Ray releases I have.

It's already been covered quite well, but I have to add, it's really not the same film anymore. It's a lovely thing.

The hype around the KOH director's cut is very real.
I watched the theatrical cut on DVD first and thought it was an ok movie. After viewing the director's cut, it vaulted into my top 5 favorite movies of all-time.

Let me be just one more person to say what a vast, vast, vast difference there is between the theatrical and director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven.

Honestly, of all the alternate/extended/director's cuts I've ever seen, KOH stands out as being the greatest improvement. The added scenes give it a completely different feel and thus it feels like a completely different movie.

Just to clarify, The extended cuts of the Lord of the Rings films are not director's cuts. Peter Jackson has said that while he likes the extended edition, and approves of both cuts, if he had to choose between the two, he'd choose the theatrical cuts.

Back to the OP though, yes different cuts of the same film can create very different experiences for the viewer. KOH is one example, while another Ridley Scott film, Blade Runner, has had a similar experience, even though the difference in run time between the theatrical and Final Cut versions of the film isn't that significant.

Another example is the film Brazil, where the Criterion set includes a "Love Conquers All" version that makes significant changes to the film, almost all to the worse (such as cutting out almost all the dream sequences).

Of course, not all the changes a director makes are preferred by everyone. There are staunch defenders of the theatrical cut of Blade Runner, largely by those who saw it that way for the decade before the DC version came out. Something similar happened to Star Wars, where Lucas' SE treatments of the Original Trilogy left many fans cold, prompting them to want a DVD release of the original theatrical versions of those films.

Editing is a very important part of the filmmaking process; so much so that directors reserve the right to request their name be taken off a film if they don't like the final edit, even though every shot in said edit was shot by the director. Let that sink in for a second. Even if every scene in a film was actually directed by the director, they can still request their name not appear on the film if they don't like how it was edited.

A final example, although kinda the inverse to KOH, is the film The Brown Bunny, which in its original cut was called the the worst film in the history of Cannes by Roger Ebert. This is what Ebert said about the edited theatrical cut:
"[Director Vincent Gallo] went back into the editing room and cut 26 minutes of his 118-minute film, or almost a quarter of the running time. And in the process he transformed it. The film's form and purpose now emerge from the miasma of the original cut, and are quietly, sadly, effective. It is said that editing is the soul of the cinema; in the case of The Brown Bunny, it is its salvation".

I concur with everyone else about Kingdom of Heaven.

Perhaps the biggest upgrade I've ever seen between original (US) theatrical and director's is Once Upon a Time in America. The original theatrical release was abysmal, cut by 40% and its intricate jumping back and forth in time construction was rearranged in chronological order, utterly destroying it. The DC is one of my all-time favorite films. (I said original theatrical cut because the DC was released a few months later in the theaters but it was too late. The stink of the original had stigmatized it and it flopped).

Fortunately, the original has been assigned to the dustbin of history and it was never released on DVD (for those who may want to see it for its historical value or if one is a masochist it was released on VHS).

I was educated in movie cutting by the Criterion edition of Brazil. It has three different cuts of the same movie, and the effect of each is completely different.

Look at the reputation of the director and look at the reviews of the theatrical film.

Figure that the theatrical film is being "edited" by bottom-line driven studio hacks who can't make a movie on their own. On rare occasions, a name director or editor will be associated with a studio cut of a film, but usually, it's someone who doesn't want to be associated with the final product.

If the movie was made originally by someone with a good reputation, the odds are that the director's cut will be better than the original film. Unfortunately, there are some cases in which both versions of the film are crap. I don't care how many times Oliver Stone recuts Alexander, the results are still going to be garbage.

Also, the vast majority of "director's cuts" are either attempts to add a bit of extra nudity, profanity or violence and lure people in with an "unrated" version of the film, or putting one or two minor deleted scenes (some of which are already available as extras on the original DVD of the film) back into the movie.

Longer is not always better. There's a lot of taut, effective 90 minute films that would be plodding at 120, even if the longer version does give us more insight into the characters or adds an extra subplot.

Speaking of Lucas's cuts, did you ever watch his introductions to cut scenes from Episode II? Virtually everything he cut, he explained was due to the fact it was "too much story." Like he was afraid Attack of the Clones was in danger of being his Doctor Zhivago. Whatever.

I remember watching From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of the Star Wars Saga years ago, and Lucas is on camera saying, "A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a very boring thing." And yet, by the prequels, all he has to say is some variation on, "This is the department that made this special effect happen" or "I cut this because it was too much story."

Director's Cut is a really good edition to have of a movie because then you get to see how the director had envisioned it to be in the first place and couldn't have it the way he/she wanted it to be because of the studio.

As Jay G brought up, it can be good to watch or study for comparison's sake, but it's not always the best version.

While movies like Kingdom Of Heaven are improved immensely with the DC, look at Apocalypse Now. While it's not bad, the Redux version messes up the pacing of the original, with some scenes (like the French plantation) stopping the movie dead.

With that said, I think that all cuts should be made available. After all, while I prefer the theatrical cut of AN, some prefer the Redux cut.

Many "director's cuts" are marketing ploys, but in the case of Kingdom of Heaven, the difference is huge. The theatrical cut just sucked and the director's cut is practically a masterpiece. Watch both and you will understand why. Or just take a chance and trust people's opinion and buy the director's cut.

I have Once Upon A Time in America on dvd. It is in a digipack, special 2-disc edition. It was released in 2003.

Here is a link to it on Amazon:
Once Upon A Time In America SE

The information on the back of the dvd says it is the first time it is offered in the full version that was seen at 1984 Cannes Film Festival that audiences cheered to. It has a run-time of 3 hours 49 minutes (229 minutes). I sure hope this is the full version you are talking about, because I can't imagine this movie having 40% more content. If you are referring to some other cut of the film, then my apologies. This was indeed one of Sergio Leone's great films, and if I'm not mistaken, this was his last.

I don't think I've ever seen the US theatrical cut of this film, and I don't think I'd ever want to knowing that it was chopped up so much.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. You do indeed have the director's cut (as do I). The original US theatrical cut was almost 40% shorter (139 minutes).

Still, there could have been more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/trivia

Okay let me play devil's advocate here.

It seems a lot of times when restored footage is added to a film I always think that this extra stuff loosens up the story. It seems like I'm always saying to myself "why did they put that in there?"

Examples of films that I think suffered from extra footage would be Alien, Apocolypse Now, The Exorcist, and American Gangster.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I feel it should be pointed out that of the movies you cited, the recuts of Apocolypse Now, The Exorcist, and American Gangster are not labeled Director's Cuts, and a few of them have DVD releases where both original theatrical and alternate cuts are included.

However, I do agree that unrated, extended, and even directors cuts have become ubiquitous on DVD, to the point where the terms are losing their importance. I'm still largely a sucker for them, especially when it's a film I've enjoyed, but the re-inserted scenes do often slow down the pacing of the film.

Director's Cuts have also been hurt by certain "fake" director's cuts, where the alternate cut is called that more because of marketing purposes than because of the artistic intent of the director. For example, the "Director's Cut" of Alien is not Ridley Scott's preferred cut of that film, that would be the original theatrical cut, but an alternate cut he came up with when Fox wanted a "director's cut" of the film to market.

So alternate cuts can go both ways, either improving or worsening the film being altered. Ideally a studio would be able to include all versions of a film on one DVD for fans to pick and choose from, such as the Blade Runner DVD set, but that doesn't always happen. So in cases where one has to pick and choose, going off of reviews and recommendations can help. But depending on how great the alteration is, the alternate cut's affect can vary from not changing your opinion of the film at all, to changing your opinion of the film a great deal.