Movie Critics - Are They Fair?

Should movie critics view films more then once so as to better appraise the effort and perhaps see what may have been missed in their first go-round? Or would that be unfair to the normal moviegoer - who gets one shot to appraise?

According to some critics, once is not enough and to appraise properly several viewings are required. However, how can this be. For a mystery or whodunit, it's never the same after the first viewing. Additionally, critics may have to view 10 or even 12 movies in a week's time during summer or holiday release schedules - leaving them mentally drained and no time for second look-sees.

Is viewing a movie upon its release at a cinema or viewing it at a press screening different experiences? And would the critique be different given different circumstances.  Many film critics resist repeat viewings, insisting that a second look may taint their viewpoint - good or bad.  Some critics say they, in effect, watch a film twice during their first viewing - both for pleasure and critique. "I need to experience the movie in the way everyone else will, but also, simultaneously, to reflect on that experience, to analyze it " AO Scott, film critic for the New York Times, told CMG. "This is more complex than it sounds. It is more of an acquired technical skill than anything else. Like learning to play left-and-right hand piano parts".

Seeing a movie twice implies you missed something the first time and leaves room for doubt - first impressions maybe best when judging films.  No critic worth their salt wants to be viewed as a PR person - they need to be arms length and objective.

Cinema is the most democratic of the arts. Gender, age, race, nationality all people have an opinion on each movie they view: therefore, critics can be held accountable by every moviegoer - agree or disagree. You can't please everyone so, I my opinion, one viewing is enough.

Best
Jim