"bring and take" made me notice. Around here if you plan to see a movie you go to the cinema. But if you plan to watch a movie it is assumed that you have a video for home use. Is this widespread or a regional quirk?

and isn't it nice to have a place to say things like that without all the pitying glances and rolling eyes I get from "non-cyber" friends!

I hadn't thought about it before, but that's definitely the association I'd have if someone were talking to me. Also in the past tense - if you watched a movie, it was probably a vid.

See means to use your visual sense. "There are those who have eyes, but see not." Watch implies seeing for an extended period, to learn something.
Reminds me of Army training for enemy aircraft recognition. Pictures were shown repeatedly, for increasingly short intervals. Finally the Intervals got down to 1/25th of a second and less. The guys loudly protesteed that nothing could be identified in such a short interval. The projectionist then showed a nude pinup at 1/60th second. Nobody had trouble recongizine what that was.

Well, I *think we would still go to the pictures to see a film (maybe the kids - i.e. under 30 - have gone transpondial, I'll have to check), but I am *sure we would *all stay in and watch a video or DVD.

Come to think of it, when I was a kid we went to the 'flicks' (derived from 'flickers' I think). Was that just UK usage?

No, flicks is a term my parents use here in Aus as well - I think it refers to the fact that the action flickers past, or that you could flick through the film to see it before it went on the prgjector (or something...). As well, ads for movies - particularly those you actually saw at the cinema - were called shorts...

"Flicks" is also common among USns. We *do use see to refer to movies attended in the theater but watch to refer to what we do with our TVs, and by extension, our TV shows. The usage referring to what we do with movies seen on tape or DVD would be a further extension of this usage.

Flicks is understood in Canada but not used much. The ads are called trailers but played before the main feature. Occasionally they are called previews which makes a little more sense.

Trailers is a fossilized usage. Back in the good old days, when the double feature was standard, the movies ran continuously, and people came during the B movie, the previews were put on the end of the movie reel and showed between features. The fact that they were on the end of a reel gave them the name trailers. They shared the time with newsreels and cartoons.

Trailers is a term still used in the UK. I would expect a preview to be an advance showing such as you sometimes see in the theatre; that is, a full performance made available to a limited or prebooked audience before the official run starts.

There are proper advertisements between showings as well of course, for insurance, car hire or Fred's takeway pizzas and so on. I think we generally use the abbreviation 'adverts' rather than 'ads' although that term is used for 'small ads' in newspapers.

Going back towards the original point, there seems to be a degree of participation or involvement when we ‘see’ but watching is more voyeuristic and dispassionate.

“Did you see that?” implies that the spectacle should have evoked a response in you.

“I watched it happen.” Suggests a deliberate standing back whereas “I saw it happen” does not have that connotation.

This may explain why we go to see a film but watch the TV. There is more deliberate action and effort when we go to the cinema or the theatre, and the whole experience is more involving than when we just sit at home and watch TV.

the whole experience is more involving
Especially in 3D

Hmmmmm. Interesting. I talk about "going to see a movie" but when I am in the theater I watch it. So, yeah, watch does seem more passive. Adults still use "flicks" here in New England but it makes the teens roll thier eyes!
Previews because they are teasers for future showings. Also sometimes billed on the screen as "Coming Attractions."
I remember the "trailers" that came on between the double feature at the local cinemas... For 10 cents (children) or $25 cents (adult), you got a newsreel, several cartoons and two movies - a "B" film and the main feature.
First time I saw a movie with just a newsreel and a main feature was at the Strand Theater in Lowell, Mass, the noon showing of "Gone With The Wind." It was 25 cents for children (no candy for Ann) and four hours long. I skipped school to see the show and got home an hour and a half late from "school" (ahem) and caught hell from the parents.

I'll bet you didn't give a damn that you caught hell<eg>