What I don't agree with is mostly her opinions on cosmetics (vs her opinions on skincare). Paula doesn't like eye shadows, lipsticks, or blushes (or really ANY makeup) with shimmer, and she only likes very neutral/natural colors. She believes a dimensional matte finish is best. So, she has a very obvious bias--but that bias IS stated in her "explanation of reviews," and it also explains how and why she rates certain products a certain way. It's important to see what her criteria for a good product are. She doesn't deny that her bias does influence her rating of a product, and it isn't as though she only gives good ratings to items that have ONLY neutral colors. As long as the product has good application/quality, she still gives it a good rating unless she thinks there are absolutely no good colors; or will limit her criticism to noting that all the shades are shimmery or too "unnatural" looking. The only thing to watch out for is that she may rate something GOOD (a very good rating, symbol: a smiley face) but may not make it a "Paula's Pick" (best rating, symbol: check mark + smiley face) if the shade range doesn't include ANY or very very few matte options, so if you don't mind, or WANT shimmer, then you need to make sure to also look at her "smiley face" ratings as well as the Paula's Picks.
She DOES have her own line of skincare products (which is somewhat a point against her) but she also highly recommends a ton of products from other brands, so she definitely doesn't exclusively promote her own line, which I think is a major point in her favor. (And this is only anecdotal evidence, but I've tried a substantial amount of her products and have been very satisfied with the results. Nothing too dramatic, since my skin is basically normal-to-moderately oily with occasional breakouts; my biggest concern is blackheads on my nose (so I don't have any serious conditions), but overall my skin has looked and felt better since I started using her line.)
She also doesn't believe that high-end cosmetics are in any way better than drugstore ones (or rather, that they're all basically the same and there are good products in both areas, so why spend more when you don't have to?). There, I think, she is somewhat wrong. I compared a L'Oreal Infallible e/s with an Armani ETK one, and though the texture, quality, and application was the same, the color of the Armani had a lot more depth/complexity, and had more dimension (more unique, with some of that color-changing quality). Oddly enough it wasn't really the quality of the powder itself though, just the color. I found somewhat the same thing with lipsticks...color, more than application, was the difference. Finding a the perfect shade, with the perfect amount of opaqueness or sheerness, with the right texture and application, and the best wear and feel, sometimes requires more options than are available in the drugstore (though I think the drugstore lines have been improving lately, and might soon be enough). And in some cases, I've found that a high-end lipstick feels a bit more creamy/luxurious, and so has a better texture and feel. (Of course, high-end brands usually also look nicer and more luxurious packaging-wise; but that's not as important to me). I am more willing to spend on makeup than on skincare.
The difference, for me, with skincare, is that I've also tried some high-end moisturizers (La Mer and Koh Gen Do, for example) and haven't found that the expensive ones are any better. If anything, the fragrance in the La Mer ones just made my nose itch and my skin stayed basically the same. I tried the La Mer ones before I even looked at Paula's reviews, and just wasn't impressed (and I really, REALLY wished/wanted to be impressed; I was kinda hoping these would be HG material)! Again, only anecdotal evidence.