> what's the point of even having reviews if it's going to be years in between them?

Unfortunately, I would bet the point is to do exactly the kinds of things that "really sucks" which this individual encountered. I'd hazard a guess that the multi-year review situation isn't consistent, either. It probably is decided "it's review time" when management has decided things aren't going well, so they use the reviews to crap all over staff. I wouldn't be surprised if this review cycle comes immediately before a round of layoffs/redundancies, as well.

The whole experience in hindsight made me realize that annual reviews would be a lot better. Although I deeply empathize with the idea that performance reviews in general are kind of misguided, because you should be getting accurate feedback continuously.