For me the main advantages of digital are to be found in wildlife photography, and low light situations (often hand in hand).
The ability to take perhaps 200 images without having to change film (or CF card) is quite important with a skittish bird or animal, in trying to remain unseen, the less movement from me the better (no added film or processing costs is also nice).
Being able to change ISO between shots, and having such high quality high ISO results has made my super-telephoto work much easier. Usually I am using 840mm or 1200mm, and very useable 400-800 ISO makes that more viable as faster shutter speeds are essential.
Digital also produces very clean images, which suits certain subjects. Again, wildlife shots in particular seem to show finer detail better without the grain of film. Perhaps the regimented structure of the pixels actually helps here.
Having said that, I do still use film regularly (particularly for landscape) scanning at 5400 dpi, and do appreciate the different qualities of various films. I would agree with Joseph that in some circumstances film just looks more real, or natural.
I would not wish to confine myself to one medium or the other, I am delighted to be able to select the best tool for the job.
Here's one taken this week with my 85mm f1.2 on a 5D at 1000 ISO.
My son and first child, just 5 days old.