I first saw this in a theatre in 2005 and inspite of owning a dvd (theatrical version) i never revisited it but revisited the 194 mins Director's Cut few days back.

The film has amazing visuals, the landscapes n the battle scenes are stunning.

While these kinda movies are enjoyed on the big screen, the Director's Cut makes more sense and has many scenes included, battle scenes are depicted with more violence than in the theatrical cut and the subplot involving Sybilla's son Baldwin V, is added but its very poignant.

Also more scenes with Hospitaller offering guidance to Balian are present in the Director's Cut. But a scene where Hospitaller guides Balian after Balian survives an attack by Guy's men looked a bit supernatural.

I am generous with a 9 cos the movie is very entertaining.

Wud have easily rated it a 10 if the makers wud have given more footage to the character of Saladin, a true chivalrous knight.

It is equally true that his generosity, his piety, devoid of fanaticism, that flower of liberality and courtesy which had been the model of our old chroniclers, won him no less popularity in Frankish Syria than in the lands of Islam - René Grousset (writer).

Despite the Crusaders' slaughter when they originally conquered Jerusalem in 1099, Saladin granted amnesty and free passage to all common Catholics and even to the defeated Christian army, (the Greek Orthodox Christians were treated even better, because they often opposed the western Crusaders).

I watched the Director's Cut of this movie, which is why I rate it so high. Truly one of the best medieval movies of all time, just do yourself a favor and watch it. Sure, the movie is very long, but trust me, the movie is very well worth your time. Don't waste your time on the theatrical version, it's missing essential minutes that are include in the DC. So yeah, basically, if there was a movie to get the DC for instead of the regular cut, it's this one.

There are two versions of this movie that are strikingly different in their impact and emotional meaning. The theatrical release is a 2-plus hour-long studio edit. The director's cut is 3-plus hour-long edit that was released later. I watched both versions back-to-back, and without question, the director's cut is the superior. It's not just a matter of additional footage putting more meat on the bone--more heart is added to the film as well.

The movie is a violent and gritty portrayal of the Crusades era in medieval times, but wrestles artfully with complex issues of faith, morality, justice and diversity and what it means to live a godly life. Apparently, the studio decided such thematic depth was a drawback and that audiences are mostly superficial morons, so they insisted on an edit that presented it as an action movie, leaving in just enough character development to feebly sew the action scenes together. In the process, not only character motivation was lost, but important plot developments in the story.

After watching the shorter edit first--which seemed disjointed and filled with holes in the way of crappy edits--I had to go look up the movie's synopsis online to understand what the hell I had watched. In the director's cut, it was much clearer. But the biggest difference is the thought-provoking character development and dialogue scenes throughout that bring an intelligence to the primitive times being depicted.

At the end of the studio edit, I felt uninspired and filled with a sense that the movie had many missed opportunities.

At the end of the director's cut, I felt I had seen a real movie with real ideas. And I was left thinking about it.

Ridley Scott has had some bad luck with studio interference in his edits, most memorably with the two versions of "Blade Runner." You would think they'd trust his instincts after all this time.