I would not mind if it produced sub-par images, by today's HD filled world, just to use the film is question!
If it's decent film (and movie stock generally is), you can still scan it to way better than HD. I scan everything to 3200dpi (ie, that's near enough to 3000x4500, 13MP for a regular 35mm frame) and can barely see the grain on Velvia/Ektar/Portra, though it is noticable on faster films like the Superia 800 I shoot occasionally.
What's HD, 1080x1920 = 2MP? 4k is 3840x2160, 8MP or so? Shooting film and then scanning (at least on the finer/slower films) will still give you better "resolution" (for whatever that word is worth) than digitally.
Of course, that's a few still images a day, not hundreds of thousands of frames, so quality and MP will probably go down when you start doing film by the 1000', but it's possible if you've got the time and cash.
A fully analogue workflow including projecting is even better, of course, as long as all of your lenses along the way are up to scratch. Give me grain over digital-compression 'blocks' any day.
The biggest barrier to film is the cost, anyone can hire a digital camera and shoot everything for a few hundred a day then edit on their $2k home PC; film requires a lot of cost for negs, developing, then either internegs and prints or scanning to a digital workflow. But if you want to give it a try, go ahead: the equipment is dirt cheap these days, there's a lot of film up for sale (there was a url link here which no longer exists) too.