This is what I was able to get back home: Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 (might be different in your region, but it'll be a "Superia"), Kodak Gold 200/400/800/1600 (used 200; have rolls of unused 800), and Kodak 400CN (C-41 process black-and-white). I haven't been film-shopping here.
My personal favorite was the Fuji Superia, but the Kodak Gold wasn't far behind- the colors just weren't my style: they were fairly "American". The Fuji looked better to my eyes... The colors were a bit more subdued, but still fairly saturated (with correct exposure, naturally), and could be pulled back really nicely from overexposure. The Fuji doesn't really push too well though, and underexposure trades a lot of saturation:
(Leitz 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit wide open)
The poor scan doesn't help matters; it actually looks fairly good in print, and I liked the subdued look it had. The Kodak Gold handled underexposure way better, and I actually really liked this one roll I pushed one stop (color was great), but I don't have any scans from it at the present.
The Kodak 400CN black-and-white was merely okay; it favored subjects with lots of reds. I think it was a Portra-type film, so that makes sense for hiding skin imperfections, but overall, it was pretty bad. Didn't have the tonal width of real black-and-white film:
(20mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor wide open)
It approximated the look of running channel mixer of a color scan in Photoshop, shown below:
Doing channel mixer is easier, more controllable, and cheaper. A roll of Fuji Superia 400 is about $1.33 a roll, while a roll of the Kodak CN was $3 to $5 a roll. With the color negative, I'd also have a color version!
My take is, if you want to shoot color film, most of the consumer color negative films should get the job done. If you want to shoot black-and-white film, use real black-and-white film, and not color process stuff (unless it's the Ilford I haven't tried, which I hear is good).