Ending isn't as bad as people say

Rating: 9/10 (7 August 2018)

I'm not going to say anything about the start of the film, every review states the same (it's great).
However, I disagree with the overwhelming majority. I don't think the ending was as bad as people make it out to be, as I perceive it.
Let me explain.
When Clyde dies and Nick survives to watch the recital, Clyde's ambition is complete; Nick has been reverted back to the justice system to which it set out to be (a justice system). I.e he will no longer make deals with criminals (so he says). Nick represents the overall corrupt system, the best of the best, and the brutality Clyde creates snaps Nick into this realization. He lives because nobody can turn the system back to a truly justice system, just him - ok his trainee could've lived, fair enough.
The hero (Clyde) dies, but his legacy lives on through Nick.
I'm not sure how effectively I've portrayed my opinion, hopefully Ive conveyed it as clearly as possible. If not, well I've given it a shot. I also don't mean to say other reviews are wrong, this is simply my take on the ending. Thanks.
P.S this film is a great eye opener for life in general. People don't seem to want to believe anything until shock takes place. Take the environmental disasters, people will only persevere when a catastrophy occurs. Clyde is the necessary evil, Nick is the bloke that realizes and perseveres after the effects pass by.