Film in general has changed the way we perceive all media. Theatre of the last 50 years increasingly uses short bursts of dialogue and action for "Scenes" and shies away from longer-form "Acts". Books, as well, have found success with shorter chapters and sentences (See Kundera and Palahniuk...wow, never thought I'd put them in the same sentence).
So, generally speaking, film sets up media for the youth as a fast-paced, low-attention-requirement experience and makes the longer, more meandering meditations on life once so prominent in art (Proust, Joyce, James, Melville etc...) a rarity. If we take cues from our experiences with art as signifiers of "the way life is lived", then in general the youth will be taught that life happens in short bursts. Taking this perhaps further than I have a right to, this would suggest that everyday slow periods of life, so valuable for meditation on oneself and the world becomes perceived as just that thing that happens between real "events", and thus the antithesis of "real" lived life. Obviously this is terribly opposed to the reality of life, which will make itself apparent, though perhaps still unrecognized, or recognized only as an obstacle, in a series of collisions with perceived life. This is why the premise of novels like Joyce's "Ulysses" are so strange to people, yet so important.
This is not to say I don't enjoy films quite a lot, or that good films don't deserve our appreciation, and I certainly don't mean to say that film is incapable of dealing with the nature of life in a slow, meditative way. It's just important that we are aware of the way we interact with media as we are engaging with it. So the question seems to be less "what is the effect?", but more "in what context are the youth taught to engage with movies?" and the answer to the original question will follow implicitly.