Reviewing software as a whole is probably something you'd want done professionally, by people you're paying to dig into your code and issue recommendations. Reviewing a whole project is tedious, it takes a lot of time and effort.
You have found what I firmly believe is the best place on the Internet to get your project reviewed, to get a number of eyes and new perspectives on what you've written.
However people on Code Review are volunteers, people that enjoy reviewing other people's code - reviewers do this for
free the imaginary Internet points, and asking them to spend a day or two on your code to produce a thorough review, is a bit of a stretch. Not to mention the 30K character limit [thankfully] imposed by the StackExchange software.
The solution is to break your project down into parts, or themes, that suit a particular specific tag or group of tags (see our tags), and to ask reviewers to review what you're posting (make sure you embed the relevant code/script/markup in the question).
For example, your web application might be following a MVC architecture - you could post a model, a view and a controller together in one post and ask for that to be reviewed.
The controller might have a dependency on a service that performs CRUD operations - that service could be the subject of another post.
The view might have a dependency on a CSS style sheet - you could post the markup and the CSS and ask for that to be peer reviewed.
The idea is to keep your posts digestible, so that when the volunteers scanning the site for zombies (unanswered questions) stumble upon your post, they want to take the time to write down their thoughts in an answer.
I don't agree with @Simon's idea (yes, that's my downvote!) to use another site for this. CR is proven, it's been around - and yet it's still in beta. Diluting the idea of a peer review into multiple sites isn't going to help anything. I wouldn't want to review a whole entire code base at once, not for free.