The gist of this review is, "the new album by Evanescence sucks because it doesn't suck the way it was supposed to."
So Amy Lee went into the studio, tried to make several versions of an album that she thought she wanted to release, and changed her mind and released this album instead? Sounds to me like she struggled to find a way to make her fans happy.
Had she done all of the things that this article faults her for not doing--change the sound of her band, radically alter the kind of music she has played in the past, bring in influences that didn't click for her as an artist--this album would still get a bad review. Perhaps a review that praised her for making dreadful choices, but a bad review, nonetheless.
There are times when you tear up the template and put the drums in another part of the room and bring in new blood. Then there are times when you realize that you need to maintain the tenuous link to your fans and give them something they want. No one should fault an artist for being loyal to the people who made them. That's bad reviewing. If the merits of the work fail, then review that. I don't understand why people get into the motivations and politics behind putting something out. It is good? Then tell us why. Is it bad? Document the atrocities.
Reviews like this fail to see the real intentions of an artist. Sometimes, you do want to shock your fan base and come up with something different. Other times, you do want give them what they want and expect as a way of maintaining that bond. I would be willing to bet that if Amy Lee gets a chance at a fourth album, it'll come out quickly and it'll incorporate a lot of style changes and influences, and it'll still get a bad review because, alas, the reviewer wanted a safe record and not an adventurous one.