The first paragraph is pretty much the same as in most other reviews (good blackmetal doesn't have to come from Europe etc.)
His points in a nutshell: He compares your album to Ensaved's "Ruun" but says you are more conventional, faster and more brutal. He also claims that Michael sounds exactly like Kjellson on that album.
He likes the second part of Ascension alot, but complains that the rest of the album doesn't feature much variety or memorable moments (wtf!?)... he claims that after several listens, nothing except Ascension pt.2 retained in his memory.
He also complains that there's no clean vocals and almost no memorable melodies to be found (even bigger wtf!?).
He finishes by saying that the album is nice to listen to and he can recommend it because it's a style that is not milked to death; he says that if you explore your calm and emotional side more in the future - like on the very good "A Season in Hell" - and combine it with the modern blackmetal elements, you'll soon do a very good album in this style, as the instrumental skills and good production for this is already present.
Ok I think I fucked up the grammar rules of indirect speech there, but hope you get the point.
Let me just add that my own (brutal deathmetal) band got a review from that webzine as well on our debut album (not the same reviewer though), and we also lost points because of "not enough variety and no genre-crossing or avantgarde elements". I have read many other reviews on that site in the past, and some are outright laughable, while some others I do agree with.
Well, I like that webzine for their news section, not for their reviews.