I had some of the same observations as Kat while reading Polemical Introduction. The article is defending criticisms on literature, and I agree and think that when doing most anything, whether reading a book or watching a film, you must form your own criticisms about it. When I think of personal criticism, I think of that moment in between movie trailers where you turn to the person next to you and say "Oh that looks good" or "Oh great another Kevin Costner movie." You, for five seconds become a little Roger Ebert.
But, Frye makes a point of distinguishing that personal taste can get in the way of a true criticism. I think this is true of the Ebert review of Blue Velvet. His values and morals make him uncomfortable watching Isabella Rossellini and the way she is "treated" as an actress. Yet, it is her choice to undress and run around like that on screen.
Frye also brings up different subjects applied so litterary criticism such as science and history. I thought this was interesting because I have been watching a lot of CSI: Las Vegas, and they always apply different fields to help solve crimes, such as Etomology, the study of bugs. It reminded me of crime solving in a criticism.