Theatrical or Directors Cut?

I was asking myself the same question. I googled and found this:

"The director's cut of The Act of Killing is a full 44 minutes longer than the 122-minute theatrical cut, and while the extended footage does offer some small further insights into the lives of these men (a lot of the new footage involves Herman Koto, one of Congo's right-hand men), it seems wise to keep it trimmed down. The film's impact is greater when we're more focused on Congo and his own journey. Some of the extended sequences of gangster filming do give the viewer a sense of the workaday imagination of these guys, but it also slows the film down. Whichever cut you see, though, the devastation will be clear."

After reading it I decided to stick to the theatrical cut. I'll watch the director's cut for my second viewing, if there is going to be one.

I just watched the Director's Cut for my first viewing and there wasn't THAT many unnecessary scenes. I don't think the paced was ruined. Herman is quite the character.
And this is not a film that you would want to see more than once. Not at least for many years.

Herzog said if you haven't seen the directors cut, you haven't seen the film at all.