How inexpensive are you talking? Most dedicated film scanners will give better results than an Epson flatbed with 35mm, but one of the biggest factors in quality of scans is the scanner operator. The scanner is essentially a digital camera that makes a slow pass over the negative (or moves the negative over the area covered by the lens). Like with cameras someone who knows how to make the most out of what they have will get much better results out of a 35mm Canon AE-1 than someone with a Hasselblad who doesn't know how to use it to achieve what they want. That being said, when you fork out the cash you're often paying for a higher level of quality without needing the knowledge to do the tweaking - e.g. moving up to a medium format camera often pays dividends in output quality over a 35mm without much new expertise - the same can be said of the more expensive scanners when starting out.
I would suggest looking for a good condition Minolta Scan Dual III or IV on eBay with holders, but I'm not sure if that's inexpensive enough. These are good, reliable scanners that connect via USB 2.0 to your computer. They'll be slower than a newer model and won't scan at as high of a resolution, but are less than 1/2 the cost and easy to get up and running with. They are more than enough to make stunning 6"x9" and 9"x14" prints (I don't crop from the 35mm aspect ratio).
This of course excludes the use of highly technical/specific gear like drum scanners and the like.