At this moment in time, film still has advantages, but they can't last forever.
While the image quality of a raw stock may be excellent, film has a far worse generational degradation than digital, and many other limitations.
Regardless, workflow kinks are quickly being sorted out and the industry is quickly adjusting to meet the needs of digital cinema cameras. For how far the workflow has come in just a decade (compared to film having a full century of refinement to it's workflow), I think that workflow issues is a moot point with how short of a time it's been around and how far it's come already.
Well film is reaching the limit of what it can accomplish. Stocks ARE still evolving, but film has largely reached it's limit of what it can accomplish, while digital has only just started developing as a real cinema tool.Keep in mind that film stocks are changing and evolving, too.
Digital technology has accomplished what has taken film development over a century to get to. There are a realistic limit to how big film can be made and still be economical, we won't be seeing anyone using anything bigger than IMAX on a film anytime soon.
While digitally we're less than a year from 28K.
Film stock is evolving, but it took Kodak 5 years to get from Vision2 to Vision3, for only a minimum visual advantage (it's advancement true, but slight).
It took Red 2 years to get from Prototype to commercial product, and it's taken them another 3 years to get from 4K to 28K.
Look at how far we've come in 10 years in digital cinema, and think of how far we'll be in another 10 years (heck, another 2, we're far closer to having more efficient workflows very very soon.)