Shouldn't once be enough? Are movies like (allegedly) The Master that *require* multiple viewings playing fair?

Having had to miss the press screenings that I was invited to for family and work-related reasons, I will likely be checking out Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master at tonight's 7:15pm Landmark show (I already bought a ticket to the sold-out show, but it depends on when my wife gets home from work tonight and what the traffic's like).  Truth be told, I probably would have waited until next weekend when the film went wide if not for A) I want to see this thing in 70mm and B) there are approximately 700 new films opening next weekend.  As I've said before, when one plays in the critical circles, you can feel like the last person on Earth to see a movie merely by waiting until opening night.  I may or may not offer a review of the picture this weekend, depending on my schedule and whether or not I have anything new to offer to the critical conversation.  More importantly, I can only hope that I get enough out of the film from only seeing it once.  Much of the punditry I've read over the last month has stated that the film can't be fully appreciated in a single viewing.  The question I'm asking this morning is whether that is a fair standard for a film to be held to?  Point being, even in an era when it's easier than ever to rewatch movies, be it in theaters or home-video formats, what responsibility should a filmmaker have to make sure his or her film can be appreciated and digested on a single viewing?  And perhaps more importantly, should "Oh you need to see it twice!" be a fair defense if a film doesn't quite work the first time around?