It used to be worth it, maybe in the early to mid 10s when the pros switched to digital and film stock was dirt cheap. But now a single roll of Portra is like $25 and even a mediocre rangefinder is $400. Nowadays, when I see someone shooting film -- I think hipster with more money than sense.
The benefit now is that nice digital DSLRs and their lenses are cheap. You can pick up a nice used a6000 with kit lens for less than the total out of pocket cost of 100 film photographs.
The cost per shot of film adds up quickly, and I'm always sure to emphasize that to friends who ask about film photography as a cheap option, but the price of the cameras seems exaggerated to me, especially given how much a used DSLR or mirrorless of equal "reputation" would cost. If you're buying one of the iconic cameras, or whatever one the "influencers" have declared a "hidden gem" this week then sure, but there's plenty of good used SLRs and point-and-shoots to be bought for comfortably under $100 (perhaps rangefinders are harder to find cheap, I've never looked). And of course there's no image sensor to differentiate the price, so a top-of-the-range SLR and a cheap one with the same lens mount should theoretically take equivalent images
The benefit now is that nice digital DSLRs and their lenses are cheap. You can pick up a nice used a6000 with kit lens for less than the total out of pocket cost of 100 film photographs.