If my dslr used film it would have cost £35,000 in film alone to take as many pics as I did. The body might cost peanuts but film certainly is not.
You'd find you wouldn't take anywhere near as many shots if you use a film camera. With as few as 8 shots on a whole roll of 120, it sharpens your attention, you try to make
every shot count; thinking about things, composing the frame, looking at and thinking about the light, checking focus, depth of field, shutter speed, etc. I found this slowing down process has helped me take better photos; but if I fancy (or need) an easier and quicker ride, or more features and adaptability, then I use one of the last of the 35mm autofocus SLRs (which work with my latest DSLR lenses).
On the other hand, you could just machine gun away with a digital until you get the desired shot, possibly more by the law of averages rather than through careful thought and concentration.
Then there's all the time it takes you to go through 300 or 400 photos to try to pick the best ones and delete the rest, how much does that cost you? I bet I can scan and sort 36 film images in less time than it takes you to pixel peep and sort through a few hundred very similar looking shots in an effort to sort the wheat from the chaff?
Don't get me wrong, I use digital cameras on a regular basis as they do a great job of producing photographs (especially in low light and macro situations) and you can check you've got the shot in the bag before you go home; but I find that using a film camera slows me down and turns me into more of a photographer, rather than someone who takes photographs (if that makes sense?).
So why not give a film camera a(nother?) try, and see what we're on about. It can be a cruel mistress though, and if you take your eye off the ball it will often give you the image you deserve for not paying attention... and I rather like the honesty of that!