Declining Reviews that don't break guidelines with no reasons given

I have now had a review for the movie Azrael rejected multiple times. I am certain it is not breaking any rules, however, since no specifics are ever given for rejection, it would be rather hard to fix any error I may be committing. It appears one is not allowed to notice certain tropes which appear consistently in modern movies. This is the most recent version of the rejected review. It's quite obvious it breaks no rules: First, the good and/passable: The movie looks good. The gore is done quite well. The action scenes are decent. The film is short and doesn't wear out its welcome. What's not so good: If the cult doesn't speak AND doesn't use sign language AND doesn't use the written word, how do they communicate well enough to build an encampment, or appoint a matriarch, or discuss what's happening around them, or figure out who should be sacrificed? The premise falls apart completely, because we've been given no details. What was the event that caused this? What are the crusty black things? Why do they want blood? How did the cult decide speaking was the gravest sin? How would they have their vocal cords removed in a society with no medical professionals? Why aren't there scars on their throats? Like way too many movies in the (post)modern era, the girl boss stuff is over the top. Typically a "final girl" in a horror movie out-survives and/or outwits the killer(s). No need for wits here; she just fights everybody all the time and comes out on top every time. Finally, at the end, our heroine sides with the burnt crusty things, choosing overt evil over ignorant evil (while also ripping off the ending of Midsommar). Uh, okay. Azrael had a lot of potential, and it wasted all of it. Summary: Decent Premise, Poor Execution