While there is nothing that film can't photograph, film cameras and digital cameras operate in wildly different ways, so it's very important to have the right expectations when working with film or having your wedding photographed on film. For example, while modern digital cameras tend to have a sensitivity to light that goes above the tens of thousands , the highest film sensitivity is just 3200 (and that is only available on black and white). This is something that can easily be fixed with the use of flash, but it is important to understand those differences when planning a wedding, especially when you don't like the look of flash or don't want your whole wedding to be photographed with flash (or when you don't want the flash to be triggered all the time during your ceremony, for example). On the other hand, film handles a high-contrast situation (like midday sun) way better than digital cameras. Film needs light. More than that: film thrives on light. But so do humans, so I think we're a perfect match.

Photographing exclusively on film doesn't necessarily mean delivering less photos, but I do choose to deliver less images than most digital photographs would do nowadays, mostly because I find the number of delivered images to be astronomical without any creative reason to support it. I make a conscious choice to focus on quality over quantity and to carefully select which moments should be photographed and how. When a good moment shows itself, I focus on taking just a few great images from it instead of multiple good images. I think numbers do matter when we are seeing photographs, and I don't want to overwhelm my couples with thousands of images that they can never find time to look at. Film is also expensive, so focusing on photographing with purpose means I can keep the final costs down and my prices still affordable.
I deliver 400-500 images on a typical wedding day, and I find that number to be perfect: enough images to tell the story of the day, but not too many that they lose meaning.

In theory, there are more things that can go wrong with film because results are only seen long after the moment is gone. But I think of this more as a challenge and I don't think it makes film inherently riskier than digital, it just makes it harder to master (which is also part of the beauty of it). Film photographs are made through a chemical process: the same amount of light will always impact the same type of negative in the same way. Learning how to measure light and understand light (and your cameras) so that you can always predict your results as accurately as possible is the biggest part of learning how to shoot film. Once the roll is finished, there comes a second chemical process to turn the film into a negative, and then a digital process to turn the negative into digital scans. In my case, this final process is done by the best film lab in Europe. Once all those variables are under control and other small measures are in place to account for the fact that technical issues (a light leak, for example) can't be spotted right away, photographing exclusively on film becomes a very safe option and the question of film vs digital comes down to creative choices only.