Game Review Flaw?

First time posting, so forgive me if this is in the wrong place. I reviewed two of my games recently where chess.com's Game Review said that I made a mistake and I think it's completely wrong.

The first is pretty straightforward endgame. I have no idea why it's saying I should have moved Re4.

This second game is trickier, and the the explanation is crazy. When you look at the moves that it thinks will be made, it seems to me like they're assuming that I would just give away my Queen. Is there a legit reason that a player would do that that I'm missing?

It says why though

I assume if black tempos the queen with c6 but doesnt take youre a goner white has to give up the queen i think because theyll do it anyways after bc6 you cant afford to not take

your position is so bad sacking the queen is your best option even when the l squared bishop isnt the best piece lol

the knight is actually an important defender i take back what i said my bad lol

I won by resignation, for what it's worth. I just can't understand why they think I would move Qxb5 under these circumstances though

Yeah, I thought moving my knight there was a damn good move

look at the analysis you photo snapped, it explains it, i think you get mated if black takes bxd3 because i think your king needs f1 after bxg3 an bxf2. The knight defends against mate on f2 i believe if you look at bxg3 nd3 bxf2 qxb5 and then qg5+

followed by kh1 qh4+ kg2 bg3+ kg1 qh2+ the mating square is covered by the knight i believe this may be one of the reasons anyways i think bishop c6 might be why too though? if white takes after bc6 and the queen doesnt xc6 you can sack the bishop on e4? so either way you have to sack your queen lol

Okay, I see what you're saying. I agree. At that point I'm already -M8, so they assume everything will work out that way, so losing my queen helps me delay the mate. What about the other one? I don't think the pic came through initially, but I'm trying to attach it now.

Now that i think about it review has lied straight to my face before lol i think it does have a reputation for misleading analysis is better then game review i believe, have you seen the scenarios where someone queens and it was a mistake to make a queen? Probably the same deal 

The engine sees you have to give up your queen to avoid checkmate, so it says you're losing your queen... sure that doesn't make sense, but engines aren't known for being good at this.

Here's an example mate.
-

The engine may not have calculated all the way to mate after your move, so it says it's a mistake because it calculated a forced checkmate in a different line.

Since it only has a few seconds to analyze a whole game this is the result.

Or just download an engine for free, that way you can use on your own. Set it to show you the top few lines, and let it reach a decent depth before paying attention to its suggestions.

Either way, the lower the rating, the less engine analysis is able to teach you, since you have to see though the type of BS the OP is pointing out.

For this position, the computer thinks there is a more efficient way, so they label the check a blunder. Remember that the way a computer works is different from how a human mind works. Almost anyone on this site would know how to land a checkmate with a king and a rook, but the computer relies on a set of calculations to find the shortest possible path to checkmate. If the resulting check leads to an extension of checkmate by many moves, the computer might label it as a mistake.

But it is not "the engine" who makes the mistake here, it is the dumb chess.com script that tries to translate the engine's numbers into English sentences (and fails miserably).

Yeah, that's true.