Hamlet To be or not to be Reflection

I would like to compare the version of the To be or not to be speech

by the Royal Shakespeare Company from 2004, and that done by Mel Gibson.
I preferred the latter due to its portrayal of Hamlet, and the emphasis that
was given to certain aspects of the speech.
To begin with, I am biased towards the latter performance due to its
setting, for I believe that the message comes across much more clearly, and
the audience is able to perceive Hamlets struggle between living and dying,
for living in itself is a struggle. Furthermore, I believe that the second
interpretation brings about a more religious view, because of its setting in
the tomb of what is most probably the dead King Hamlet, as well as the
emphasis that is put on some parts of the speech, such as the undiscovered
country from whose bourne/no traveller returns, while at the same time
turning the camera angle to look upwards towards the skeletons.
Moreover, the second version makes Hamlet seem smart but perplexed
and confused, and clearly conveys the internal struggle that he is
experiencing, whereas the first version makes Hamlet seem completely mad,
with no motive for his actions. However, one stark difference between the
two is that in the Royal Shakespeare version has Hamlet point to his head
with his sword when saying thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
which I have seen in many versions, while the Mel Gibson version chooses to

have him simply move into a space with light, which seems to imply that he
is enlightened in some way. Lastly, I believe that both actors choose to act
out the speech with a great deal of emotion, but they choose to emphasise
different parts. For example, in the first version the actor emphasises to
die much more than to sleep, whereas in the second version both are
emphasised equally, which I believe shows the relationship that Shakespeare
is developing between the two acts.