It depends on where it came from. LUTs are specifically designed for a given color/gamma space input, so whatever they output and whether it works comes down to... to "it depends."
I've worked with film as a colorist for more than 40 years, so believe me when I say I know what film looks like. I'm very skeptical of a lot of so-called print LUTs, because to me a lot of them are just one guy's idea of what a print "might" look like. I concede they change the image and they are popular for some people, but often I think you can get very close to the same results by just using the color controls within Resolve. Still, I agree there are cases where LUTs are necessary, particularly for viewing Log cameras on set and for working with dailies in editorial, and for making sure groups of artists (like VFX people) are all seeing the same pictures for the same show.
Filmbox and Dehancer are 2 plug-ins that I think have value for film emulation, but you have to really experiment with the controls. And a lot depends on how the original material was shot. I don't think it really looks like a projected print, but... it can make digitally-acquired material look interesting sometimes.
And I'd also say that real color scientists can engineer something that's very much in the ballpark of kind of a film image. Those processes are generally not available to mere mortals. It's fair to say this is a large, very complex subject that's hard to explain in detail in a forum message. And the subject is obfuscated by a lot of yahoos who throw around LUTs all over the net, and a lot of them are absolute junk. There are some good ones: PixelTools's powergrades have some value, and Juan Melara's print emulation is very interesting and has a lot of thought behind it.