The book isn't very long and a lot of what is described (which takes up a great deal of the length of the text) can be covered visually often with pages covered with a single shot, so the arguement for not following the majority of the events of the book isn't really valid. The story hasn't much fat to strip away anyway, it's pretty much filmable as it is (and yet no one has done it yet which could have been the unique selling point to this film, especially with that title).
Dracula is an ages old aristocratic monster, with a sense of honour about his past and his eye set very much on the future.
That's all there is to him and that's all you need to tell the story.
He has his nocturnal powers, his bewitched henchmen and his horded treasure. He is an invader from the outer space of the past and alien world of exotic Eastern Europe.
He corrupts the simple air-headed Lucy and turns her into a wanton sexual predator and devourer of children. So her earlier silly state is necessary for the plot otherwise where does the horror of her transformation come from? The Whitby scenes and the murder of her mother are vital to the story as it builds up the futility of the attempts to save Lucy which pays off later when Mina is in a similar situation. Vampire Lucy is an utter perversion and desecration of the human she was, Lucy in that film died a saucy tart and woke up a saucy tart who bites children. Lucy's first encounter with the hunters is one of the most cinematic elements of the book and it's not in the film
The pillars of gas have a purpose in the book, Dracula marks them and digs up the treasure underneath to fund his activities, in the film they look good but don't actually serve any purpose.
The whole journey to Castle Dracula and Harker's stay there is a progressive journey into a horrific supernatural tinged world all the elements serve a purpose as does the horror on the Demeter (which is almost a mini-horror story in itself) cutting that out is unforgivable.
As Harker travels more into the forest he is travelling more into the past and more into the alien (Didn't Coppola get this? Hasn't he already proved that he can do this sort of thing already?).
The Demeter brings the alien from the magical past into the scientific present (well back then).
The love story utterly emasculates the threat of Dracula, he goes from being a powerful invading alien to a love sick soppy creature hounded to death by a group of cardboard villains only he isn't because he also feeds babies to his brides but he doesn't want brides because he wants Mina his true love but he does because he turns Lucy?
It's a real mess of an adaptation.
Which is a shame because it has wonderful production values, a proven cast (even Keanu and Winona can act when they want to) and a director who can direct but just didn't in the end a bit like the PT really.
As for Lucy's weapon fiddling I would have enjoyed it in Carry On Screaming but not in Bram Stoker's Dracula (there is a time and a place for everything).
We aren't going to change each other's minds here, that's not the nature of sharing each other's views on this or any other subject.
As I said earlier if the title and the publicity machine wasn't offering what it didn't deliver I would be more forgiving of the piece.
If the PT were fan films and not the official Star Wars Prequels they would be seen as masterpieces.
Dracula is such a filmable book that having no film version that just takes the story and puts it on screen after all these years is utterly frustrating. Especially when so called unfilmable books like Lord Of The Rings get better served.