I agree with Photo_Utopia, many places often mistake image quality as pure resolution. I bet most film users just like the look of the stuff printed, and don't shoot res charts!
I have not done much testing, but film doesn't stack up badly res wise compared to digital. Only once did I take my 6mp DSLR out and film. I just used up some bog standard ISO 200 print film, and it thrashed the pants off of the DSLR in just about every dept. Rather goes against the thinking of some places when they do testing on stuff like this.
And I have yet to see a digital shot show the uber fine levels of tonal variations, that film does. Despite the so called tech experts suggesting digital colours are better and more accurate. In my own experience, the real world, leaving aside the cost and time element of film, digital files require far more work in pp to even attempt to get near the level that film is at already.
It is IMO easier to just pick film for some subjects. Digital has a place, so does film, both are great in many ways.
But what I mostly like about neg film is the good highlight headroom, which is pretty poor on digital. I spend more time working the composition, than worrying about highlights shot to bits. This is the bane of digital, so poor in the highlight area, it isnt very funny.