Josh is able to step outside himself
We can never look at anything without reference to ourselves, our tastes, and our histories, of course, and Josh brings plenty of his own tastes to the table, but I know what you mean. A critic can aim to start from a personal, emotional response to a film and personal associations and work his or her way out from there (eg. a sort of Reader Response approach), or a critic can aim to start with more of what we might call the "evidence" of the film - the stuff we can all see and agree on as present - and then fit together what the film seems to be doing or saying as an object unto itself, without as much reference to one's own personal reactions (eg. a sort of New Critical approach). The approaches are always going to overlap, but critics lean one way or the other in emphasis, I think.
Matty brought a lot of personal passion and associations to film discussion; I appreciated that passion though I can understand why others wouldn't.
Have you listened to the earliest episodes, Neoman? Curious what you think of Sam's approach, as compared to Josh's or Matty's.