That Matt Field is not a children's entertainer has been established by Matt himself. His other qualifications magically are also a matter of public record, pretty much. I have never met Matt, but know a fair deal about his qualifications, so others must know much more.
The fact is, a reviewer is merely giving his OPINION of a product. Anyone familiar with reviewers knows this. If you don't, then spend some time with the TV guide, or The New York Times Book Review. You'll find yourself disagreeing frequently. If you can align yourself with the reviewer and feel sympatico, then you can reasonably expect to be well guided by his review. If you are not of a similar mind, then it is likely that you will not agree with his view (Duh!). (You can use his previous reviews, other generally available information about the reviewer, etc. to make such a determination). Knowing this, I've read everything that William Buckley disliked, and ignore most of what he cares for. What I HAVE NOT DONE is characterize his personal opinion as worthless, an ad hominem attack as far as I'm concerned, simply because I don't agree with his view.
As far as a reviewer acting as the guiding light for otherwise uninformed buyers, well I can only speak for myself, but I always seek a second, and usually, a third and fourth opinion. In todays' information age a multiplicity of opinion is easily had.
I think that Matt is certainly qualified to address the issues of originality, entertainment value, depth or shallowness of analysis, production values, etc. given his experience with, and exposure to, the magic community generally. (That, of course, is just my opinion, a "review of the reviewer", so to speak...)
The material in question might be better served by a dissenting review, focussed on critiqueing said material, rather than that materials' last reviewer...