It's not a notion that I subscribe to. Are you a critic writing for a general audience, or a critical theorist writing for film readers? I think most, like me, would be the former, writing for people who will likely only see any given movie once in the cinema or wherever (unless they love it so much they'll buy it) so will judge, like the critic will, based on that first and only impression. That's not to say there shouldn't be time for reflection (Mark Kermode even advocates for waiting a few weeks before putting fingertips to keyboard) but critics who evaluate new releases based on repeat viewings aren't seeing the same film everyone else is seeing. I think AO Scott, as quoted in this piece, has the best approach in trying to watch "twice in one sitting".