You've really asked a question with many different answers. If you've not been shooting color film regularly, probably negative film is the safest and easiest to shoot as it has more latitude and is far more forgiving than transparency film.
I recently switched from using a Kodak transparency film to a Fuji transparency film, and despite fairly thorough testing prior to shooting, I would say it took at least 100 exposures before I felt comfortable that I would get >>exactly<< what I wanted on the film when it is exposed. Despite the testing, I have to see the film perform under a variety of lighting and contrast conditions and evaluate the results to really get it "dialed in." You wouldn't have that kind of trouble with negative film as you can easily over expose by 1/3-1/2 stop and be guaranteed that you have a "fat" negative for a printer to work with.
Also, the reproduction method to get your final print is a question. Certainly, it's easier to get a "good print" from a negative than it is from a transparency. I do a lot of Ilfochromes specifically because I can't find a lab that makes them to my requirements without an inordinate amount of expense and hassle.
Likewise, if I make a LightJet print, I have the transparency scanned, I make all the major corrections in Photoshop, and send it back to the lab with a "proof print" from my Epson printer for them to make small, final adjustments.
My recommendation would be to use negative film if you want "sure" results to turn into prints.