I have no interest in the game, I didn't even know about it before GDC and I can confidently say that I can pick out eight flaws in that review. It reads like a review written by someone who doesn't play games very often or makes very poor choices and comparisons when it comes to writing the review.
The main flaw is that he knew the score and then wrote the review, the text should always come first and then the score has to be based around the text.
Minor, but silly flaw, but they shouldn't compare a game with a limited budget, different goals and different styles, to the two most graphically monstrous First Person Shooters on the market. Halo: Reach, Battlefield: BC2 and Black Ops were'nt compared to Killzone 2 and Crysis (in the visuals department), so I don't see why Homefront should have been picked out.
Barely any info on the multi-player, despite it being one of it's main and most positive features.
Colin also didn't mention the differences between the platforms. Some recent comparisons have come out and have shown that the 360 version has some serious texture issues, but it was never brought up. Judging by the video review, it looks like he only played the 360 version and decided that the PS3 and PC version aren't worth mentioning, despite the PS3 version being the lead platform and the PC version looking fantastic (according to other sites).
I can go on, but then I'd go long and I don't want to bog the page down. Consistency is the key, I don't want to read a blog, I want to read an IGN review.