system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why do movie/music/book critics revise their original rating of a particular film/album/book and give it a better score than they originally did? 

This question is partly inspired by The Big Lebowski. When it first came out, critics were mixed. However, as time went on, some critics re-reviewed the movie and gave it a more favorable score. 

For example, "Peter Howell, in his review for the Toronto Star, wrote, "It's hard to believe that this is the work of a team that won an Oscar last year for the original screenplay of Fargo. There's a large amount of profanity in the movie, which seems a weak attempt to paper over dialogue gaps." Howell revised his opinion in a later review, and more recently stated that "it may just be my favourite Coen Bros. film"."

I find the change in his opinion a bit ridiculous, to be honest. 

Are professional film/music/book critics just circlejerking each other off to what the popular consensus is? Is that why they change their previous opinions?
gpt
Sometimes it's hard to realise the true worth of a work after a single viewing, which is what the majority of journalists will see of a film before having to do a write up. They're working to a tight schedule, so often they'll watch it once and do a write-up on their initial response.

Some films/albums/books need to be experienced a few times before being fully understood and appreciated.

Also, some works are better when viewed in retrospect. The works of H.P. Lovecraft for instance, when they were released in the 20s, received next to no praise or appreciation simply because it was too different from the contemporary trends. These days, now that we can look at his work in a historical context without our judgement being clouded by current fads, he is regarded as a genius.