The problem with film adaptations

I just watched a movie called The Last Voyage of the Demeter. The movie is based on the chapter with the captain's log in Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. The movie took some creative liberties with the plot, which is understandable, as the singular chapter in an otherwise long book did not offer much source material.

My issue is this: the monster in the movie is nothing like the count in the novel.

However, I understand that the count is much scarier in the written form than it would be in a movie, had the movie been 100% true to the monster's description in the novel.

Furthermore, the movie's monster, if described in the written form, would not have much effect.

So I suppose both versions got the monster right - because they took their respective mediums into account.

That being said, I prefer the novel's version, mainly because it's so much scarier that it doesn't even compare to the Dracula of the movie.  

End of rant.