That's different from mandatory code review, which almost inevitably will end up covering style and process considerations.
It's certainly a filter, but depending on your perspective I'd be a little cautious about "won't affect the good people".
But we also specify (and highly encourage) that anyone trying to land a more invasive or complex change should require multiple review approvals. The most demanding "please pile on, we want eyes on this" request I remember was set to require 4 separate approvals.
Other users have already described healthy code review processes that improve code quality while helping all participants to grow individually and as a team.
How does review treat programmers like cogs in a machine?
Can they be helpful? In some cases, perhaps yes. But they're definitely pushing a collective-ownership, try-to-smooth-away-individual-differences agenda.
Code review shouldn't involve bikeshedding about whether braces should go on the next line or not. It should be about design decisions, clarity of expression, algorithm complexity, etc.