I read Dracula after having seen a few movie adaptations first. And, it's clear there is a big gap between the hollywood of today and the literature of yesterday. The book is much more calculated and realistic in its portrayal. It came during a time where the mere idea of a vampire was enough to sustain the mystery and allure (rather than adding in werewolves, witches and every other supernatural element under the moon).
However, that particular style of writing, which was prominent for many authors at the time, doesn't lend itself so well to movies nowadays. It doesn't have the same cookie cutter elements like a love interest and a spectacular ending. However, that's part of the reason I enjoyed the book, and books by H. G. Wells, Robert Lewis Stevenson and Arthur Conan Doyle. They represent a different kind of literature that was more about discovery than sensationalism.
I'm not saying that they are superior to literature from other centuries (it's all a matter of perspective and opinion) but I do think that they are a refreshing change of pace that looks back at the origins of genre fiction. I think all modern fans and writers of speculative fiction owe it to themselves to go back and read the books that started it all. Great question!