Re: But what will become of the other "creative" reviews?
I think in the case where a review is clearly parody (of which there are many, of varied quality on Amazon), it is obvious to the reader that it is such. The famous examples (sugar free gummi bears, hideously expensive interconnect cables, three wolf moon shirt, etc.) aren't defamatory because they aren't claiming to be factual.
On the other hand, a review which does claim to be factual, but is factually incorrect, and clearly so (as in this case) can't be anything other than defamatory. One wonders as to the motivation (and identity) of the reviewer - for example, do they have a vested interest in the product being reviewed negatively because, for instance, they are the producer of a rival product.