Many papers have background that touches on enough different areas that citing all the original research in those areas would quickly balloon a paper to thousands of references. Therefore, it's common practice to cite authoritative reviews, plus specific individual papers of the highest relevance.
The direction to:
cite original research articles rather than review articles
...only applies when you are discussing specific findings. If you are referring to Alice's paper, you should cite Alice, not Bob's review of several papers including Alice's. If you are referring to a whole area of research that has been nicely summarized by Bob and includes papers by Alice, Jane, Jesse and Richard, you can (and should!) cite Bob.
If anything, it's a form of plagiarism of Bob if you were to read Bob's review, find that Bob has collected papers from Alice, Jane, Jesse, and Richard, and cite those papers rather than Bob (it would be okay to cite Bob plus the others if they are sufficiently important; if I do this I make clear that the citations were found via Bob, even if I'm familiar with the other papers individually as well). Collecting papers in a review is an intellectual endeavor that deserves citation.
I think the general claim that review articles are cited more frequently than original research is false, but I don't have great data to support that besides my own papers: reviews make up a minority of citations in a single paper.
However, my impression is that there are a handful of very highly cited reviews, often by respected researchers in particular fields, and also lots of reviews that are hardly cited at all. Those highly respected reviews collect citations from a very broad area of research and their citation counts balloon well over that of any individual paper in the same broad area.