I gave you an analogy equal in quality to your comment.

What you get out of the movie depends on who you are when you watch it. I believe that movies, like sex, can improve and gain deeper meaning (or depth; as well as potentially grant more satisfaction) as a result of repeated encounters. That is the point of my analogy.

The first time (viewing a film or gettin' it in) is bound to have a certain je ne sais quoi about it that no following time will ever possess. However, that in no way confers any measure of quality to that first time. It makes it special, not good. That is the point of my analogy.

Your comment about sex taking two people is taking the analogy, and refusing to see the point. It would be like if you said "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras," and me responding, "What if I just leave when I hear foot-beats?" Sure, sex takes two people and the quality of it does depend in some part (but not an equal part) on your partner. You want to apply that to movies, take "partner" and replace it with "director" or "actors" or "writers" or "producers" or whatever you want. The quality of a single film stays the same, yes, just as the quality of a single instance of sex would stay the same. But a Michael Bay movie is not a Tarantino flick is not a Cohen Bros. film. Quality of the movie depends on who makes it as much as how you experience and interpret it. And as for the viewer, where they are in life is going to impact how they receive the film.

You can't put the same foot in the same river twice. - The river changes, but so do you.