This film should be praised for its similarity with the book, it owns the right to bear Stoker's name in the title. Besides following the actual main story and events of the 1897 novel, it manages to get the gothic/romantic vibe on. The ostensive language presented in the classic book (representing great concern with artistic form) is translated in to gorgeous photography, impeccable makeup, proper soundtrack, and astonishing costume design (Eiko, we love you!).
There is evidence to the theory that Bram was inspired by theater and by the work of the actor Sir Henry Irving to create his masterpiece, people also believe that he intended the book to be portrayed on stage. That did happen for some years, and it is truly beautiful to see that the language of dramatic theater was studied and represented by the intentional overacting of this beautiful cast. The sassy and scandalous drive Lucy Westenra received is hilarious. Her 3 candidates are just as characteristic and over the top as I pictured while reading.
Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman look beautiful together, even though I do not personally enjoy their melodrama, one of the picture's few downers. I understand that, at the time, there was an urge to insert some humanity into Drac (there had already been too many just-naturally-evil nosferatus in the XX Century), but the way Mrs. Harker fell in love with him goes too far for me. After all, she is supposed to be a woman of brilliant wit and fiber, instead of the frivolous and distracted girl she turns out to be throughout the movie.
Of course, cinema always needs to be situated in time, and some of the film's elements may remain hostage to its conception in early 1990's. Due to timeline proximity, sometimes it looks like a hybrid of satire and hommage to the over-sexualized vamps of the 80's. Besides that, we can see an urge to follow Anne Rice's revitalization of the blood-sucking creatures' image: after the publication of "Interview with the Vampire" (which would receive its own adaptation less than 2 years after), the undead portrayed - more than ever - a philosophical and beautiful analogy to our suppressed animal impulses, making the monsters less monstrous and giving them the privilege of our identification, pity and complacency. This impression is an attribute that was present and marked by Mina's goddess-like character in the original book, but almost ignored throughout XX Century's countless Draculas. Such look upon the Count makes this very film even more remarkable.
Finally, I believe it's a complete and respectful adaptation because it does not neglect the previous images created by other movies. It seems to summarize some of the richest portrayals of Stoker's creation: the decrepit old man, opulent ghost, hopeless romantic, cruel womanizer, gory werewolf, disgusting transmorph, and more. It is versatile and shows many of Oldman's faces. Unfortunately, the first minutes referencing the popular belief that Count Dracula is Vlad Tepes is one of the disappointments that Francis Ford Coppola brought to the screen. At the same time, it does not give much space for a try on the iconic image we all know, which is a great choice. Trying to add anything refreshing to the eternal looks of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee could have been a miss that Coppola happily avoided. I believe that staying out of the ultimate stereotype in a Dracula picture is one of the vampiresque 1990's directors' best choices.