The main reason why the original was better is..

I’m in agreement too. Further, in the original move, Jan-Michael Vincent killed Charles Bronson just for business (if I recall correctly – it’s been a long while since I saw the original). So, seeing Bronson get his revenge from the grave was great. But here, McKenna has a perfectly valid reason for killing Bishop – the guy had murdered his father. So seeing McKenna get blown up at the end – no satisfaction whatsoever. He did not “have it coming.”

If they had to go with the Hollywood ending, then have McKenna take the Porsche and drive off. From a distance, we then see Bishop watching with binoculars. “Enjoy it, Kid,” he says, “it’s the least I could do.” Then, they flashback to how Bishop escaped the explosion and have him drive off into the sunset. Either let them both live or have them both die. This ending was crap.

i like the.ending. why does it need to be fair? also steve took to assassination for a living and screwed up badly twice. he was nit an angel.

but i can see how you prefer the ending of the original. i might have to sre that soon.

I thought this was just so boring compared to the original.. maybe if they cast Liam Neeson instead of Statham it would have been more interesting

A complete bumbling of why the original stood out. A total misfire, it could have at least been decent if they stuck to the original.

it basically was the same ending. not sure what the "cop out" is you're talking about