Assuming that you have the technical ability, how many pixels do you need at how many colours to completely simulate film? I think that should refine my question.
Your common high end DSLR definitely outresolves 35mm film nowadays, especially at higher ISOs. It’s not a 1:1 comparison, but film does have grain and that grain size is the “limit” of the data.
That said medium format film and larger would still be hard to beat.
As far as tonality, a modern sensor should also have greater dynamic range than almost all film. They do behave differently though - highlights are harder to overexposed on film but dark areas are easier to underexpose, compared to digital.
Chemical film creates distortions of its own. Colour film often pushes the reds to make skin tones, lipstick, and sunsets warmer. You can choose how much grain you want and B&W is often shot on fast high-grain film to give it a gritty textured look. Landscapes need slow micro-grain film to look as lush and detailed as possible.
And so on. The point is chemical film isn't any more real than a digital CCD.
Digital consumer displays all have colour distortions and dynamic range limitations, and so does chemical processing. Even if you apply no deliberate processing to an image, by the time it ends up on paper or a web page it usually looks quite different to the scene you'd see with your eyes.
So yes - the "feel" is different. And that's a creative choice - or it can be, for the professionals. Polaroids look very different to medium format.
Amateur phonecam users get one-size-fits-all enhancement whether they want it or not, in addition to some basic editing options. If they didn't their lifestyle shots on IG would all look lacklustre, and they wouldn't be happy about that.