This review sucks ass. It was given by George P. Cosmatos the director and he really just talks about what you're already seeing on the screen with no background or insight into how the actors approached the characters.

And this is probably because Costmatos didn't really direct this film, but was directed by Kurt Russell himself. Here's an interview saying as much.

http://www.truewestmagazine.com/stories/the_western_i_godfather_i/1467/5/

Cosmatos explains early that, as an Italian, his perception of the American West was formed from watching Spaghetti Westerns. Throughout his commentary, he attributes storytelling choices that were contrary to the historical record to wanting to tell a "more interesting" story. He's keen on claiming credit, and short on sharing it, which is aggravating. In places, it seems as though he's implying that he and the crew all but invented the film as they went, as though Kevin Jarre (and an un-credited John Fasano) hadn't written a thoroughly researched screenplay. Cosmatos also fails to remember actresses' names, frequently referring to them by their characters' names instead, if at all. It's a rather tedious exposition of egocentricity that doesn't provide much insight.

Overall, the director talks a lot, but doesn't really say that much. There is a lot of redundancy about how he really wanted to make a historical, different, epic, homage, western, etc., but not a lot of details about how he really did it. He talks a bit scene for scene about what it took to shoot each piece, and what the production issues were, but this too is somewhat redundant.

The extra scenes reinserted into the film are mostly good, and I saw them on the laserdisc version as deleted scenes years ago. The most interesting things the director talks about can be found on the IMDB trivia page.

One thing not brought up are the persistent rumors that this director really didn't direct the film, but instead Kurt Russel did it when the original director (the writer) left. There are a lot of good reasons to believe this, but the director's commentary makes me think it can't be the case due to the depth and detail he goes in to. Not to mention the lack of Kurt Russell's directing since.

About 75% of this commentary is George pointing out what is happening on screen with little information aside from that. There are a few comments on framing of shots, scenery coloring or movement and other thoughts about movie making. Also notable: there was a fourth Earp brother not included in the film. No reason is given why he was excluded. It's not until the one-hour mark where he expounds a bit more.
George talks throughout the film, but it truly is a great example of a lot of talk that doesn't say much. It would be great, as we approach the 25th anniversary, if we could get a cast commentary with Russell and as many of the others as possible, especially since people like Stephen Lang and Thomas Hayden Church have gone on to bigger careers since.