I disagree. There definitely is a Zelda formula, and it's one that hasn't changed dramatically since OoT (and I would argue even longer; OoT was basically LttP in 3-D to me, and the only REAL departure from the formula was Zelda 2). But that's what we love about it as Zelda fans.
What I think the NYT review is correctly saying is that the formula works for those of us who had our minds blown by Zelda in the 80's and 90's, when triple A titles had years between them, and you knew that Zelda was one of the few showstoppers. Now though, when a single month has five or six triple A titles, what really does make Zelda stand out amongst a crowd that includes Skyrim, Arkam City, Modern Warfare 3, and others? This is the world for new gamers today, and I can totally understand why they could care less about a new Zelda game. Sure, they're missing out on a great game, but they could make the same argument to me since I'm playing SS instead of Skyrim or [insert game name here].
Zelda pretty much lives on the memories of people like us, because Nintendo's refusal to significantly change things makes Zelda more and more irrelevant to the larger gaming world. The perfect illustration of this is the expansion of voice acting debate. Where you come down on that debate almost guarantees whether or not you'll be buying the next Zelda. Many of us in this thread have played Zelda since before VA was common in gaming, so it doesn't bother us. But do you think that someone who's first gaming experience was Halo will understand why no one talks?
I wish we could see how many people bought Skyward Sword who've never played a Zelda game before, because that would end this debate one way or the other for good.
tl;dr- Yeah, every game has a formula, but not every game has been around for 25 years. If Nintendo is content selling Zelda to the same people, then more power to them. If they want to attract new audiences, then the formula does need an overhaul.