Opening a whole can of worms; I was going to say the same thing as Private and then my phone locked up as it was so appalled at the depth of the question !
You ask the resolution of 35mm film, but that resolution various depending on the film just like an 8mp 20D is different to a 50 mp 5DS.
It is difficult to draw a parallel in "resolution" between 35mm film and digital as film is not sharp in the way that digital is, and cannot be sharpened (much) without sharpening and highlighting the film grain in an unnatural way, making the grain intrusive in a way that it isn't in the film. Because it's not sharp the MTF resolution in lower, and so a very low count mp digital camera, say 8mp APS-c, will run rings around even a fine grain film for sharpness. When you scan 35mm film to a high output size, say 35mp, you cannot really view it at "100%" as it will appear very very soft compared with digital. This doesn't mean that it is a soft image when viewed normally, but today, so many people want to view an image at 100% on their monitor, and doing this with film is unwise.
Film does have very good colour definition, much higher than the equivalent "mp", whatever than might be.
35mm film got a bad reputation for resolution and quality because many people used it as a point and shoot type camera, and even then images were not viewed at the same output size as we view now. However if you use a fine grain film and excellent lenses with excellent technique, fine grain 35mm film can certainly give a "high resolution" digital camera a run for its money when printed up to say A3 and viewed from a normal viewing distance.
This image was shot many years ago on Kodachrome 25 and is a drum scan, scanned at 35mp, but this 35mp is only relevant to native output size rather than resolution. I have it printed at 24" across, and when viewed from a normal distance it's not far off my digital cameras. In terms of a digital comparison in mp terms I'd say it's about 15mp in resolution and maybe 24mp in colour definition. In "sharpness" it's probably around 12mp, maybe less.
View attachment 198489
Here is a full size crop from the left hand side:
View attachment 198490
So at 300 dpi this would be a 24" long side picture. Not bad for 35mm film.
View attachment 198492
In Black and white Ilford FP4 125 ISO film is popular. When scanned well it can be quite "sharp" due to the grain, but there is less "resolution".
View attachment 198491
Here's a full size crop from the middle. This is a recent picture shot on a Canon 1n and EF 35mm f/2 IS lens, and was scanned using a Hasselblad X5 flexiscan machine.
Neither of these two images had any sharpening applied at all. Also notice that the grain is totally natural and not artificially sharpened and intrusive.
So my advice is when looking at 35mm film forget "resolution" in "mp" terms. Scan to the output size that you want. Use a good scanner if you want to do a sharp, 35mm film image justice. Avoid flatbed scanners.