Friedkin can usually be counted on for a really excellent commentary. This track, however, is absolutely dismal, with the director simply describing the on-screen action to us. It's obvious that this commentary track was an entirely superfluous one, added by Warners as an extra enticement to buy this much inferior version of the horror classic.

Luckily, the commentary on the original edition is excellent. Stick with that.

Probably in my top 3 of the worst commentaries made (that I've heard, anyway).

A slow and uninformative comentary. One of the worst.

The worst. Non-informative and boring. The director is clearly uninspired & uninterested to say anything. He just describes the events we can see for ourselves. Actually, he also spends a lot of time in silence.

I don't understand why this is the worst commentary ever! Was Friedkin forced into doing it? His commentaries for French Connection and Exorcist (original version) are excellent. Avoid this at all costs (unless you want a cure for insomnia).

Friedkin describes the action onscreen, and very little else. Possibly the least informative and easily the most boring commentary I've ever heard. Skip this one and check out hte track he did with Blatty, The Excorsist's author.

Awful awful awful. Friedkin describes events that we can plainly see, and that's it. Pointless.

Started this commentary and was shocked to find how painfully bad the first 30 minutes were. Came here and saw the reviews, but listened to the rest of it, thinking, it had to get better. It didn't.

This should be titled "The Exorcist - The Version You've Never Heard" as Friedkin has almost nothing to say whatsoever. It's only one of three audio commentaries I've ever heard that I've given up on after about half an hour (the other two are from Baz Lurhmann who makes visually engaging films but comes across as a total prat when he opens his mouth)

Not a good commentary, but hardly the "worst ever", either. It would be an incoherence to take umbrage at Friedkin's proneness to narrate here, since he did exactly that in pretty much all the second half of the commentary for The French Connection, which got a high grade here on this site.
Having already recorded a commentary for the original cut of the movie, here he doesn't impart as much information as he could, but there is some interesting trivia about the filming in Iraq. Also, given that Friedkin's and William Peter Blatty's stated intention at the time of the recut of the movie was to give the story more religious depth, his commentary, although in a lacking way, fits the purpose.

This track is bad. Most of the time Friedkin describes what you could seen on the screen anyway. In a word: boring

A good audio commentary, for me, includes behind-the-scenes insight into the making of a film, interesting tidbits, and humor, and most of all the film-makers' engagement with the audience -- all of which lacked in this commentary. As others have noted, this is merely a blow-by-blow description of the plot as it is happening. Might as well turn the commentary off and just watch the movie.

Yes, the director spends 99.9% of the time talking about the on-screen action, but at least it's scene specific! Not great, skip unless you are really into this film.

This is more of an audio description rather than a commentary.

I know I'm alone on this, but I liked this commentary.

I should note I had it on as background noise while I played Fallout 4.

It was more ASMR rather than a director's commentary. I really got drowsy listening to it.

But really after the scenes in Iraq..... he literally just describes what happens in each scene. More like an Audio Descriptive Service.