Not as good as the original, but I enjoyed it

I do think the original is just an overall better film, and I think the '89 film did a much better job of showing why Frank Tilghman, owner of the Double Deuce in the original movie, sought out Dalton: he's not just a very skilled fighter, he's a "cooler" with a reputation for being able to bring rowdy, violence-plagued bars under control -- all of which indicates not only toughness, but also (and more importantly) professionalism, discipline, strategic thinking, and good social skills. In the new movie, bar owner Frankie, just hires Dalton because he's a tough fighter. There's no sign he's ever worked as a bouncer before. There's no hint he shows all the other qualities that would make him fit for a job like this. I think the original also did a better job by far of showing how Dalton effectively managed the bar's crew of bouncers, weeded out the unsuitable ones, laid down the rules, and effectively ran out the troublemakers. I also thought the romance angle was better done; it felt forced in the remake, and I personally didn't think Gyllenhaal and Melchior had much chemistry.

As far as the villains go, I'd rate the movies almost equal, with a slight edge to the remake. The ultimate villain -- the rich bad guy intent on taking over the town -- is about equal in both films; they're both shown as a little too brazen and reckless to be truly all that plausible, IMHO, but not so much so that I can't suspend disbelief and enjoy the film. But Conor McGregor makes a much better, more menacing, and more fleshed-out direct antagonist for Dalton than Marshall Teague did in the original.

I did like Gyllenhaal's performance, and I thought the new movie did the troubled, guilt-ridden protagonist angle much, much better. In the '89 film, Swayze's Dalton feels guilty for what's described as a pretty clear-cut, unambiguous, totally justifiable self-defense scenario. He really doesn't have any reason to carry around any guilt at all, but not only does he, he seems inclined to wallow in it. Sam Elliot's character rightly berates him for it.

In the remake, Dalton's got much more reason to feel guilty: he was acting like an ass before a match, he provoked another fighter to lose his cool, which resulted in Dalton losing his as well and going too far, killing the man. He's got a lot more reason to feel guilty, and he seems to cope with the guilt better for the most part.

I get the intent from the makers of the original: they wanted to show Dalton to be tough and capable enough to take on any enemy, but at the same time show that he's not a violent man at heart, and show that he has a sensitive side. Plus the handsome tough guy with a troubled past angle plays well with female audiences who want to see him redeemed by his love interest -- that sort of thing is right out of a romance novel. Still, they made Swayze's Dalton look to me more like a guy wallowing in self-pity than struggling with justifiable guilt. The new movie handles this aspect much better.

And, I note Dalton doesn't stay and get the girl in the end; job done, he gets on the bus and moves on. Looks to me like this might be intended as a set up for a sequel, like they wanted to leave Dalton free to have another adventure.