Regarding refreshing rate - check this out as it will give you the most unbiased view as it has actual tests in controlled conditions in there:
http://www.maximumpc.com/refresh_rate_2013?page=0,1
And yeah, by action packed movie, I was also referring to games.
Anyway, the main thing with refresh rate is that it won't really matter if you're on LCD display and if whatever you're watching has a smaller frame rate than the refresh rate (roughly put). LCD displays emit light, they don't flicker like the old CRT displays did (with CRTs, the higher the refresh rate, the less noticeable the flickering and thus better), so if you're viewing something at 24 FPS and have a 120 Hz refresh rate, it will only mean that one frame will be displayed while the screen refreshes that frame 5 times, instead of, for instance, 4 times in a screen with 100 Hz refresh rate. Is there a difference? No. The frame you're seeing at the time will still last exactly the same amount of time and it won't look any different than if the refresh rate matched the FPS rate.
Obviously, due to different FPS rates in different environments (animations, different videos, different games), it's best to have a refresh rate that is higher than the max FPS rate. The refresh rate should also, ideally, be the result of multiplying the FPS by any whole number.
Even as little as 12 FPS can be enough (depending on the given situation) for the brain to perceive images being shown as a continuous movement, but the brain won't really notice the difference between the (I am exaggerating here, I know these FPSs aren't used but just to give you an idea) 200 and 400 FPSs (with matching refresh rates), while it will pick up difference between 10 and 12 FPS.
The ultra-high FPSs and refresh rates are similar to listening music in uncompressed formats (meaning not mp3 or the like), many purists will claim how it's heaven-like to listen the music in those formats (and how it has to be recorded at 192 kbps, or even 320 kbps) and how listening to music that was recorded at 96 kbps and then compressed by using a mp3 codec sounds like a dying cat.. In reality, 99% of the people don't notice a difference between mp3 compressed, recorded at 96 kbps and uncompressed formats recorded at 320 kbps because our ears don't hear anything above 20 kHz (and most people can't hear anything above 10 kHz, there were only a few of us who could hear something at 13 kHz and none of us who were there heard 15 kHz) and because mp3 works by cutting sounds that either can't be heard due to other sounds being much louder in the mix or due to being out of our ear's hearing range.
The rates 120 Hz and 144 Hz also aren't random, they are at that number because 24 FPS is the most used FPS rate and 24*5 = 120, 24*6 = 144. Even though 60 Hz is 24*2,5 and not by a whole number, it's still deemed as acceptable because it's not multiplied by something like 2,65498231 or something like that AND because 60 Hz is very close to the number of "snaps" our brain receives from our eyes (note, the actual vision is, of course, continuous, our eyes don't actually take snaps like cameras, but in order to process that information and not be too overwhelmed by it, our brain automatically filters some of that continuous information being received and thus actually only processes the information that is significantly different from the previous information processed - kinda like how compression algorithms for movies work).
Note, another very common FPS rate is 23,976 FPS and that differs from 24 FPS so if you're editing a video, you have to select the right one, not just say 23,976 is the same as 24 FPS because it's not. Close, but it's not.
As far as the blurriness goes, in video editing it is actually better to add motion blur as it creates more natural feeling to it, especially for elements in the background.
The main reason why 120 feels smoother, especially in gaming with a lot of action going on, is the one I outlined above regarding the refresh rate being a whole number multiplier of the FPS. But refresh rate at 200 and FPS at 100 won't look any smoother than refresh rate at 140 and FPS at 70, the only reason why one might think it's smoother is the placebo reason..
How I know this? Well, most of it comes from the fact that I've been studying these things at uni and out of it for the past 3 years.
PS: I also suggest you rather buy a monitor with proper color representation and/or pay someone to calibrate the screen, as that will make a much bigger difference than the 120 vs 144 Hz refreshing rate.
~N