The difference between 3:2 pulldown judder and 24 fps judder can be described this way:
On a 60Hz display, if there's a slow pan across the scenery (for example at the beginning of Cowboys and Aliens), 3:2 judder will mean the pan is sort of smooth, but every so often, there's a jerk/jump in the pan, as if the camera has a twitch at regular intervals.
This is due to trying to play back a 24fps movie on a 60Hz display. On a 96Hz or 120 Hz capable display, each of the 24 frames is simply repeated 4x or 5x. On a 60 Hz display, some frames are repeated 3x and some 2x to fit to the 60Hz cadence.
With 24fps judder in a theater, the same pan in the movie stutters all the way across the screen (which is what I saw at the theater, reminding me why I don't go to the theaters much anymore. Some folks, like me, are sensitive to that stuttering (and blurring) due to the low 24 frames per second. It simply doesn't look smooth because my regular vision doesn't stutter that way as I look at things in real life.
A LOT of people though, are SO used to that stuttering in movies from experiencing it in all the movies they've watched that when that (unnatural) stuttering is gone, they consider it odd and think it looks like video (60 interlaced frames per second) which produces much smoother and sharper motion, hence any display that makes film look like it was shot at a higher frame rate produces what is called the 'soap opera effect', because it looks more like the higher frame rate of video.
The old 24 fps standard was established at the turn of the century because film stock was expensive and so was the cost of developing it. They tested 24 fps to be the lowest frame rate possible for the majority of viewers to not find the flickering objectionable. Using 48fps would double the costs of filmstock and developing it.
Unfortunately, so many people have grown accustomed to the optical artifacts and flaws of 24fps that they have a hard time adjusting. The movie 'The Hobbit' was shot in 48 fps because some directors (Peter Jackson and James Cameron for example) are aware of the limitations and flaws of 24 fps especially for 3d. When they had preliminary viewings of footage from The Hobbit, the initial reaction from regular viewers was, "It looked like a made for video documentary". Showing just how much the average viewer has been conditioned to accept the artifacts of 24fps as the norm.
I am one of those lesser few who actually LIKES the soap opera effect, simply because it is smoother and closer to what I see in real life. My vision doesn't stutter when I look around in the real world and I can't stand when it happens for movies, so I want the best implementation of frame interpolation available.
If you show a movie to a fresh viewer who has NEVER seen a movie (or video) before, and has not been subjected to any outside bias, and you show it to them in 24fps and say 60fps, I think most would prefer 60fps because it's more realistic. Aside from folks having to get over a bias towards an outdated, archaic standard, I do believe higher frame rates will some day be the norm.