... since Laurie Mason has graciously seconded the proposal I made in this post, why don't some more of you weigh in. If enough comments appear, I certainly won't mind passing them along.
Update: In the comments attached to this post so far, I think Trav comes nearest to what I had in mind: "... the 'bells and whistles' should wrap all of the available technology around the book review, which is key and placed at the center."
But the other suggestions fit well into this.
I would raise one caveat about Gene's suggestion regarding length. I know for a fact that giving a reviewer more space frequently results in a less focused review. Check out the TLS and see how many of those long, long reviews are really flaccid, providing not context for the book under consideration, but a soapbox for the reviewer. That said, space not being a problem online, a reviewer would be able to write as long as necessary. The problem would be avoiding self-indulgence and unnecessary digression.
But keep the suggestions coming. More in this case is definitely better.