Where's your home?

Imagine a world where you are king. Where you have a kingdom, and all the people are loyal to you. 

Imagine a world wherein you own mountains and mountains of gold, and you are all the envy of your neighbors for the success that you have brought to yourself, and your kingdom.

Imagine it all gone in an instant, for something more powerful has taken it from you.

Imagine the very life you knew taken away from you in a heart beat, and now you are left with nothing but the scraps that was left of you. What would you do? Would you just walk into a life of poverty and live with it forever, or would you rise from the ashes and take back what is yours, not for the greed of your vast wealth, but because it is what is rightfully yours. This is movie is not just about what I just said. In fact, there's a lot more to it than just reclaiming what is rightfully yours. It's a movie about giving someone a home because you understand what it means to lose one. But quite frankly, there's still a lot more.

Today's review is about, a hobbit. Actually, he is not just a hobbit, he is "The Hobbit". And it's an unexpected journey because it's something that Bilbo Baggins never really expected. Now there were stories that in his childhood he wasn't really acting like a Baggins, because he was more acting like a Took. Now in the world of Middle Earth, specifically in The Shire, Tooks aren't exactly your gentlemen hobbits. Actually they have a reputation of being a bunch of scoundrels. But Bilbo deviated from that line growing up, and so he became a Baggins. But as fate would have it, Gandalf the Grey found him and chose him to be part of the adventure of a lifetime.

I will no longer share with you what happened in the movie, for that would be your journey. But I will give you insights on what I've observed. 

The great Sherlock Holmes once said that there is a difference between what you see, and what you observed. Is there a flight of stairs in your house? Would you happen to know how many steps there are? If there is a flight of stairs in your house, then you can see it. But if you know how many steps there are, then you have observed it. Now, why am I referencing Sherlock Holmes when he was written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and this movie was based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien? The answer is quite elementary my dear reader. For the man who plays "The Hobbit", is also known in England as the great Dr. John H. Watson.

It is my observation that Martin Freeman was selected for the role of Bilbo Baggins not because of his facial structure which could pass as the younger version of the Bilbo Baggins that we grew up with in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But because of Martin Freeman's character in the BBC modern retelling of the story of "Sherlock Holmes" as Dr. Watson. Both Bilbo and Dr. Watson initially didn't want any part of whatever adventure that their company has to offer, and yet in a bizarre turn of events, they decide to join them. And it becomes the greatest decision both his characters have ever made. I have yet to see someone to ever pull of a face of honesty and structure to life, and then suddenly jump into their wildest dreams. 

Now, what good is talking about Dr. Watson, when we can't even talk about the man whom he bridges to the readers. The man known as Sherlock Holmes. Doesn't he come out in this review? Actually I would, but if all you could get of him was a total of 20 seconds of screen time, then there really isn't much to talk about. I have yet to read any of Tolkien's books so I would not know if his character was ever really in the book, nor would I know if he were to return in the sequels. Nonetheless, it took me by surprise to read the name of "Benedict Cumberbatch" in the end credits, when all I was really expecting were the names of those who were part of the original cast in LOTR and returned for The Hobbit. Oh, before I forget, Benedict Cumberbatch plays the brilliant Sherlock Holmes in the same show that Martin Freeman is in.

My next observation would regard the cutting of the story of "The Hobbit" from one book and making three movies out of it. I am aware that two would have been enough since the trend is now to split movies into two parts so as to keep the audience from sleeping in their seats, as well as keep the action alive in the movie. But three movies to tell one book? Isn't that a bit overboard? Well, if what we're going to consider is the amount of money that you have to shell out just to enjoy the movie of one book, then yes. But this isn't some crappy movie where you feed the need of lustful teenagers. This is a movie that is produced and directed by Peter Jackson. The man doesn't just make movies, he makes sure that the movies do justice to the book. If all he wanted to do was make a movie about the book, then a lot of the side stories can be neglected. But this is a prequel to one of the most amazing trilogies that this generation has ever seen. And it wouldn't do justice if it was made half-heartedly. So if you find it insane that the movie is in three parts from one book, I respect your opinion. But if it's in the name of quality movies, then I accept the decision of making three movies.

Overall, this is definitely a movie that you shouldn't miss for 2012, especially if you believe the BS of December 21, 2012. If we're all dying next week, then I'm glad to say I saw epic movies before I died.