I've been using film for 60 years now. Had a brief foray into digital but didn't really get on with it due to the lack of developing/printing/doing it all myself for better or worse experience.
As for making digital look like film, if you want pictures that look like film then use film.
If you use post processing to make digital pictures look like film then your images are simply like many others on the internet - fake.
I feel almost the opposite, and believe that digital allows me to do more of "it all myself" than analogue did, and although the mechanics are different, the thought processes behind the digital equivalents of developing and printing are similar.
The enormous advantage of digital over analogue is the control it gives the photographer over the image, especially with colour prints. And I get the same sense of excitement watching a print appear from an inkjet printer as I did watching a black and white print emerge in the developer, or lifting the lid of a colour print processor.
With digital I can get prints with colour, tonality, contrast and saturation that are a far better match to what I "see" than any colour prints I made in the analogue days: and at one time I was a photographer in a materials lab, where making prints with accurate colours was part of my job.
For "technical/scientific" photography, digital makes things easier than analogue, but for "straight"* expressive photography it can make things more challenging. With digital, you can go well beyond the limitations of the film days, where you might have simply matched a colour film type to subject or vision( especially true if you were using transparency film). But with sufficient practice and effort (certainly no less than required with analogue) I can now make prints that more precisely match how I saw and "felt" about a subject than I could in the film days. Even though I am still learning digital and far from where I would like to be.
Most of my serious photography, professional and personal, has been with film, and I have fond memories of the process. If I had a darkroom, I might still do some film photography out of nostalgia, but only black and white. I wouldn't want to lose the control that digital gives with colour, or go through the hassle of making colour prints. Ironically, if I went back to film, it would be for the joy of using analogue cameras, but not 35mm (maybe a Leica M), it would be a Hasselblad, Mamiya 67, Linhof or Sinar, but I can't see it happening.
The control that digital processing gives you over the appearance of a print means that, within the bounds of your ability, and on a picture by picture basis, you can choose the "look" that best matches your subject and vision. It's the creative decision behind the choice of "look" that is important, not whether it has a digital or film look.
There isn't really a "single" digital look, even though there are things we associate with digital, and nor is there a single "film" look, even though, again, there are things we now associate with a film look. The joy of digital is that it can give any kind of look you want. There is nothing "fake" about a film look on digital; it's just a digital "look" that has some characteristics we associate with film. It only becomes fake if you tell people you took it on film.
I'm not in any way trying to persuade you to use digital, but your brief foray into digital possibly hasn't been long enough to fully appreciate the flexibility of digital.
* by "straight" I mean photography where the integrity of, and the relationship with, the subject is an important aspect of the photographer's vision for the photograph.
with 35mm I find the grain to be too much on certain films such as HP5 & Kodak Gold but on 120mm it's acceptable, all IMO though.
