I’ve just been watching every film version of it that I can, and looking through my editions of the book. Wolf updated his annotated version as The Essential Dracula in the 1990s. There have been several annotated editions since, most notably Leslie Klinger’s The New Annotated Dracula (2008), which I highly recommend – he had access to Stoker’s original manuscript, apparently the only annotated edition to do so, and it’s extremely interesting. Klinger also comments on Wolf’s notes and corrects some. (The mother of all annotated editions, with more annotations than any other, is Clive Leatherdale’s Dracula Unearthed, which I’ve never seen. I’m going to have to – you should pardon the expression – dig up a copy.
The novel Dracula invented many of the “ancient” traditions about vampires, while perpetuating a lot of older ones. Stojer really did craft this as a case of Modern Science (and knowledge of “ancient tradition”) against the Up To Date Monster (Dracula’s transporting crates of his native soil to England so he can still rest in “his native soil” is actually a clever end run around what ought to be acrestriction on his mobility. Dracula is repeatedly shown to be one clever sonovabitch).
A lot of the book consists of shorthand, telegraph messages, phonograph recordings, and the like, making a sort of early multimedia novel (although I understand Stoker lifted this gimmick from Wilkie Colins). I’m urprised that, as far as I can recall, no one uses a telephone.
As far as film versions go, David J. Skal (whose “Hollywood Gothic”, on the making of the 1931 film is a must-read) recommends the 1977 BBC Louis Jordan version as the most faithful. It also has long boring stretches. For my money, look at the fitrst half or so of the Christopher Lee/Jess Franco Count Dracula from 1970. It’s incredibly faithful, down to Lee resembling the original illustrations from various editions of the book. But it’s ultra-low budget, and it shows as the film progresses. Leonard Wolf would undoubtedly recommend the 1992 Coppola/Gary oldman version, for which he was advisor. Botyh Skal and Klinger revile it, but it contains more of the elements of the book than any other, and it’s definitely not boring. It’s fault is that it loads the film with things not in the original, notably the whole love story/reincarnated love thing that really doesn’t belong there.
Bela Lugosi, IMHO, is the best overall Count. Nobody else really convinced me that he was an undead East European nobleman. There are issues with the 1931 film (it’s too static a production and stays too close to its parent stage production. Dammit – it’s a motion picture. You can show us things instead of describing them. And you can move the camera, too. And there are no armadillos in Transylvania!), but Lugoi’s performance is overall my favorite.