Only watch newer action movies by Robert Rodriguez. He seems to be the only one these days not addicted to very short exposure times (if you listen to cometary tracks, he has also been nearly on the cutting edge of commercial camera and effects technology, and actually understands the compromises needed), though even he has used them sometimes.
Beyond that, watch old movies. Like compressing HDR (which I've only seen done to good effect in a single TV show, Downton Abbey, and no movies as of yet), the problem is that movie and TV folk can screw things up with modern camera sensors,
and so they do, instead of using them to make better looking video. It used to be making a faster video meant less quality per frame, because the film relied on a lot of light to do its thing. That's why they'd use backdrops, filters, and post-process work to make a night scene in the day, for instance, because typical dusk is too dark for the film. Now, the sensors are sensitive enough they don't need to do that. But, instead of longer exposures, which create motion blur, which looks bad if paused on a still image, but good-looking for motion, they go for quick exposures, which make for crisp images, but poor-looking for motion.
Your eyes see changes in intensity over time, across your whole range of vision, not scanned stills. With enough frames to be faster than your eyes can respond (about 22, IIRC, near the center), a series of images that have been exposed for long enough each to have enough motion blur, will appear as a continuous moving image, similar to looking at reality. Of course panning and zooming slowly but at an even speed, and probably some other things, create effects we can pick out as, "wrong," but that's the generalization. I can't recall which now, but I was one of the famous old WWII movies some years ago, and paused it, in a scene where everyone was in a small boat. The boat's painted on label was clearly readable when watching the movie, but pausing and stepping through the scene, I could not make out any character but a big dash. With new movies, you can pause and step through, while reading everything, but it's often hard to see what's going on in a scene when watching it as a movie.
It has been annoying the crap out of me for years, and and I stopped bothering with movies I expected to lack substance due to just that, because watching a slide show of bangs and booms is not enjoyable (I'm all for shallow entertainment, when the mood strikes, but it's going to have to be good to get me to sit through such bad video). Much like the music industry's Loudness War, you can't do any fixing on your end, but the core of the problem is not the framerate. If the 60FPS interpolation works for you, keep on doing it. It's making blurry middle frames, where it would have looked alright had it had burry 24/30FPS content to start with. I can see the same sort of effect in games, at 60FPS, now that I have a fast enough monitor, FI, so I'm sure 48FPS and 60FPS movies and TV will give you the same problem, for the same reason.
Facebook
Twitter