You're the one who is kidding, right? The M9 might be behind the times with other digital cameras, but it's still ahead of the film Ms in performance. We can start with usable resolution (often overstated for film cameras) and low-light capability (yes, there are ISO 1600 films - and yes, they are worse than the M9). These days, 35mm film cameras - even if they matched 24x36 digital in other ways, would still give you scratches, dust, expense, and bulk of recording media. Oh, yes, and the ability to shoot slides. They're cheaper to buy, but the price of film has escalated in a way that makes film a very difficult economic argument.
Today, most outputs, even "film," are via digital means (Noritsu and Fuji minilabs digitize all negatives - they don't optically print). And you can both RC and fiber print b/w from digital files (thank you, Ilford). So what's the value added by using 35mm film as the capture medium? Dynamic range in b/w might be an answer, but against that, you have plenty of opportunities to botch the development, scratch the negatives, or suffer intergenerational loss. 120 film is much more defensible due to the amount of data it captures.
This "film Ms can't be obsolete" is a red herring; it's essentially an argument that improvements at the high end of digital somehow bring 35mm film cameras back from the dead. That's not to say that people don't enjoy shooting 35mm film for other reasons (I do), but in many ways, you're arguing manual typewriter vs. computer.
Dante