Irish, were you eating your boogers when you were deciding which version? Why not use IMDB or wikipedia to study before making yourself look foolish?
Ridley Scott is one of the few directors that makes a substantially radical "Director's Cut" compared to whatever truncated theatrical edit he cut. Unlike most directors(Peter Jackson, Oliver Stone), he doesn't simply just add scenes that aren't necessary.
No, Scott's Director's Cuts are really different movies from the original.
Take BLADE RUNNER. The theatrical edit had a narration track that was removed from the director's cut, plus the latter version made it more obvious that Harrison Ford might be not so human.
As for LEGEND, trust me, unlike that fucking goddamn version you had to sit through, the Director's Cut is at least a competent movie.
No more super gay 80's techno-pop music from Tangerine Dream. Instead, Jerry Goldsmith's underrated beautiful score is restored. The extra minutes of scenes clear up so many plot holes and sillyness that plagues the American theatrical edit. Also, no pointless text prologue.
Better yet, the Director's Cut takes a good half hour before it reveals the Prince of Darkness...and its quite stunning.
Really irish, the American theatrical edit is quite a boring dated 80's music video mess. But the Director's Cut is to fantasy what BLADE RUNNER was for science fiction: A stunning living and breathing celluloid universe using visuals to tell a story. Of course, the DC edit of LEGEND's problem still reveals its problem. Its story is making sure its so archetype of the fantasy adventure myth, that in many of its genre-touches, its quite.....well-worn. Still, competent compared to the American theatrical edit.
