Referencing: Which one is more ideal? (cite as from cited or direct cite)?
Like user49483 said in the comment, citing a review is considered very bad form. Basically, it is your job to read a lot (reading widely) and cite what is appropriate.

As one who marks papers, I definitely reduce students' scores for citing indirectly like this (and I see it all the time).

When you cite indirectly, you are saying "I know this is important because I am citing it but I did not read this important piece." JeffE said in a comment (which I cannot find) that not citing the original is actually you saying that you could NOT FIND it because if you CAN find it you MUST read and cite it (or something to that effect).

One of the many reasons to read and cite the original is because the third party (reviewer) might be reporting on the original work incorrectly. I saw this one time when someone said a famous author in my field had said something which did not sound like that author at all. So, I re-read the writing which was referenced and it was simply being mis-reported. If a reviewer mis-reports and you cite the review then you are showing that you do not have the proper understanding (and your grade should reflect that lack of understanding).

Is it more work to cite properly? Of course it is. Doing anything properly takes more time but we do it because it is the proper way and taking shortcuts simply leads to poor results in any field or study or work.