This movie would be fine, if not for the title...

Rating: 1/10 (2 February 1999)

... This simply isn't "Dracula".
By naming it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" Coppola holds himself to a higher standard of faithfulness to the original book than any other version of the story, past or future. And he falls flat on his face.
"Dracula" was never a romance, nor was it intended to be. If Coppola wanted to make a vampire love story, he was more than welcome to do so. But not Dracula. Dracula was about conquest, and NOT the romantic sort. If Dracula falls in love, it blows the entire plot and subtext of the original. How does that qualify as faithful to the original story?
Yes, beautiful cinematography. Yes, great cast (with the obvious exception of Keanu Reeves, who couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag). Yes, great costumes, score, yada yada.
NO, it was a LOUSY rendition of Dracula.