I do think that Bram Stokers Dracula is one of the best in terms of visuals and story line plus actors that played in it - for me, it's an entertaining film and I'd recommend it. But I also think it's a mixed bag - it has its good points and bad points.
The visuals, set designs and costumes are excellent. Gary Oldman's a good actor, and props to him for not only hiring a dialect coach to get the accent acceptable (although there are some inconsistencies there) but he also learnt a few lines of Romanian, which he delivered very well.
I personally don't like making Dracula a loser in love. I'd much rather Dracula just be a villain through and through.
Yeah, like I said, Oldman's Romanian accent varies a bit - sometimes he sounds a little Russian, other times he sounds a little Italian. And, inexplicably, when he appears in the wolf bodysuit and the bat body suit, his accent is posh English! <---- what the hell was going on there?
As far as knowledge of the real Vlad, a lot of it is made up - it's almost impossible to verify what happened and what didn't.
The vampire stuff is obviously nonsense but makes for a good horror story.
The impaling may very well have happened. Young Vlad grew up in one of the Ottoman Sultan Murad's palaces. Vlad's father, Vlad Dracul, took his young sons (Vlad & Radu) there because Wallachia was a vassel state of the Ottoman Empire. Young Vlad would probably have seen criminals impaled there. The Ottomans used to punish Muslim criminals with beheading but all others - Christians, Druze, Jews - were punished with impaling.