While we're always dubious when a non-professional decides to step in as a theater critic, we have to say this isn't a terrible effort.
There is still too much of the story revealed - a freshman mistake that is all too common in reviews. Ideally, the plot should be a maximum of one paragraph. It's called "spoilers," and and editor should be flogged everytime too much of the story is included in a review. But hey, you ARE the editor, so who's left to chop off your bloat?
There is also a failure to separate out what makes certain elements of the play work; this isn't a movie. In a movie, the character and the actor playing it can be used interchangeably, because we're all going to see the same movie. The scenes will always flow the same, the timing will be the same, and so on. This isn't true of plays. Sure, this PRODUCTION will always have Oser as Vera, but a year or two down the line, someone else is going to produce this play, and when readers find THIS review while looking for THAT one (or simply researching the play), it should be clear what parts of the play's success (or failure) are due to the playwright, and which parts are due to the actors' interpretation, and how much of that is colored by the director's overall vision.
But you write real pretty, and you managed to turn it into a proper review at the end there. The only other thing you missed is that Equity is the diminutive form of the name of a union: Actors' Equity Association (AEA). It should always be capitalized as such. B-