(If you haven't read my review of The Fellowship of the Ring yet, go do that before reading this entry.)
I've been seeing a lot of reviews like that recently. Part of the peeved and self-righteous tone is borrowed from Evelyn Lewes' TV reviews in Interzone; but my more general point was that I keep seeing reviews in which the reviewer didn't know some fundamental fact that's crucial to understanding the work in question. I don't mean to be mean-spirited about this phenomenon; sometimes such fundamental facts are hard to come by if you don't happen to come from the right direction, and I very much sympathize with well-meaning reviewers who just happen to not have the necessary key to unlocking the work.
Wish I had the nerve to post that review to rec.arts.sf-reviews. But trolling is mean; I meant it to be funny, but I'm sure I would get dozens of letters from people who took it seriously (which is kind of a meta version of my point: those readers would essentially be reviewers who weren't clued in to the key information that the review is tongue-in-cheek).
As for Fellowship, which I just saw this afternoon, I largely enjoyed it. I do wish my brain would shut up, though; I had a hard time getting completely immersed in the movie. The ironic, distanced stance of someone afraid to be caught being too wide-eyed or naive about something? Perhaps.
I think I'll hold off on writing a real review of the movie for now. For now, I'll just throw in a completely different note: Hollywood appears to be yet again making an action-blockbuster film out of a Philip K. Dick story. I've been seeing print ads for the upcoming Tom Cruise movie Minority Report for a while, but didn't know ('til the credits in the preview flashed by today) that it's based on a Dick story. Directed by Steven Spielberg; ~oh, joy.~ But one of the credited writers has previous writing credits for Dead Again, Get Shorty, and Out of Sight, so perhaps it won't be a total disaster.