There's a note in one of the "Making of..." books for one of the Trek series from Michael Piller, a memo he included with one of the drafts of the pilot (for DS9 I think) ... that went something like this:
"Comments are welcome as long as they're positive!"
Look, myself -- and I am only speaking for myself here -- it becomes more a matter of wanting a review and not a summary.
The majority of reviews tend to not delve in to the larger choices or ramifications of character arcs, stories, events, or motivations. There is no in-depth analysis. As I said previously, for my taste, it's all sizzle and no bacon.
Maybe that's too much to expect. I don't know. I think about critical criticism of say, an Alfred Hitchcock film and then I think about most of the reviews I read about fan films, and I wonder why the latter can't be more like the former, particularly in this genre where so many fans are so loud and proud about their critical and storytelling skills.
Or, alternatively, why there can't be a more personal perspective involved. I know she's not very popular in some circles here, but Michelle Erica Green's reviews of Trek episodes come to mind. I may not agree with each point she makes, but her reviews are readable, they raise cogent points, ask questions, hold the writers/producers' feet to the fire, and more importantly open a forum for discussion.
I guess what I'm saying is that most fan film reviews I read don't do any of that. What's the point of discussing "Blood and Fire, 2" if the only gripes the reviewer has are the fact that the sound wasn't ready in time?
Again, maybe it's too much to expect.