Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2009 May
2009 April
2009 March
2009 January
2008 December
2008 November
2008 October
2008 July
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| A Bean to Pick with Starbucks by Lannon McGregor |
| 12.28.08 (5:15 pm) [edit] |
Visit Swanktrendz
I woke myself from a short sleep to greet Monday with saggy, heavy eyes. The morning air was topped with a crispy crust of fog with a mist and cloud-filled center. Habit forced me to stop for my usual Starbucks' fix. Lucky for me, I had half a dozen Starbucks' outlets to choose from during my five-minute walk to the Sky Train Station in downtown Vancouver. While I was waiting for my Venti Americano (aka extra-large coffee), I impulsively grabbed a bottle of water and paid $1.99 for this 'seemingly' normal beverage. Now, allow me to confess; I am not known for "paying" for water. Call me crazy, but I believe the freshness of water tastes just the same from the tap as it does bottled (aside from the general smug feeling one gets from the obviously elitist choice to pay for water), and such was the case with my purchase of Starbucks' "Ethos" water except Ethos had a promotion which spoke to my innermost humanity.After looking at the heart-tugging, subliminally prompting, (the image was of clearly thirsty Africans) and reading the "Help the World", or some equally similar hippie-bullshit promotion, I assumed that my Ethos water-purchasing-coins would contribute to implementing change in an otherwise, impoverished country.And then I scanned the information on the back label which read:... only 10 cents of my $1.99 contribution would go towards building wells for villagers in Africa...and, I've gotta tell you, I was appalled. Here's a company which can afford to put two outlets directly across the street from each other, but can't afford to dish out more than 10 cents per bottle towards the promoted charity? Yet somehow they can justify charging two bucks for a bottle of water, by disguising the sale as a lame-ass excuse for a humanitarian mission instead of as the marketing ploy it is? I mean 10 cents? C'mon! That's not even 10% of the proceeds yet the charitable aspect is 90% of their campaign to sell the product. It's ridiculous to think we have to pay as much as $2.00 for water just to get a company to take some responsibility in helping someone.This whole scheme is marketing at its best. We are always force fed guilt like it's our job, as middle class working stiffs, to help the poor whom these corporations are generally getting rich from. Why do we have to buy a happy meal from billionaire corporations like McDonalds just to encourage their (tax-deductible) charitable contribution of 10 cents to Childrens' Hospital?Corporations are the only groups with the means to help and provide REAL change, yet time and time again they are ignoring their obligations by constantly passing off the responsibility to their consumers by using these charitable marketing schemes to play on our compassion.The funny thing about it is, I passed a homeless man on the way in who asked me for change and I told him to get a job. Had I given the clearly, alcohol-dependent man the $2.00 I spent on the water, at least I would have been giving to a more immediate cause, rather than having my money sucked into the vacuum of a faceless corporation. After all, everyone's gotta drink something.On the plus side, I am glad to see Starbucks do SOMETHING for a country they have been raping for all these years. I wonder how much those Ethiopian bean pickers make per hour?I wonder if it's more or less than a bottle of Ethos water?I hear it's awful hot over there... 
|
| Transporter 3 Movie Review By: Ian Albrecht |
| 12.04.08 (9:02 pm) [edit] |
Just so you know, my youngest son has decided to start posting his reviews of music and movies on Swanktrendz. Due to his young'ish age (12)- Go easy on him (or Mama Bear will roar, heh!). Actually, I warned him he was on his own and he has to take the good with the not so good (responses to his writing). Given he is an official 'tween', I think he's doing all right. Enjoy!Although I was initially excited at the prospect of seeing the third installment of the Transporter movie trilogy, I couldn't help but come away from the theatre feeling largely underwhelmed. The main character, Frank Martin, (played by Jason Statham)  receives his latest assignment involving the delivery of a 'package' from "Marseilles to Odessa on the Black Sea." However, Martin's European 'delivery' is not without (predictably) at least one 'twist'. Furthermore, his usual 'delivery' method is hampered by his being outfitted with a wrist device that will ensure explosive death and destruction if Frank ventures beyond 75 feet of his vehicle.Unfortunately, this 'twist' immediately brought to mind the movie, Speed, as the underlying premise/theme is similar. E.g.: If the main hero alters/changes his course, in opposition to the villain's projected demands, the outcome will be life-threatening mayhem.I openly admit that Jason Statham did an excellent job despite being given an average script; containing some gad-awful dialogue, as well as plenty of clichés reserved for "bust 'em up/ bang 'em up" movies. Moreover, Statham's acting should be noted for his having to respond to (with a straight face) his co-star, villain, Robert Knepper as Johnson. But more about Knepper, later.Of course there is the standard love interest between the Prime Minister of Ukraine's daughter, and our hero, Frank. Despite how important her character is to the movie's central plot, (her role is played by Natalya Rudakova) ... I could NOT recall her character's name! I had to google both the character's and actor's name (which turns out to be Valentina). This does not bode well for any actor attempting to make her mark in the 'biz'. As well, despite her character's important addition to the plot, as well as to the "twist", Rudakova did not leave any impression that would make us a) want to know her name or b) care to learn who was performing the role.François Berléand, once again played Inspector Tarconi, (Frank Martin's sidekick/closest thing to a best friend) and, once again, Berléand did a solid and consistent job at injecting some humour and the occasional dramatic urgency into an otherwise, lukewarm role. The main villain was one of the 'worst' villains I've seen, and I did not buy into/believe in his character for one minute, I would label his acting as "old school"; as in, I would liken Transporter 3's villain to the original Joker from the black and white television series, Batman.Overall, the plot for Transporter 3 was dull, been-there-done-that, and simply pathetic (with exception to anything being blown up, or any computer generated excitement.) Then again, these effects should be a 'given' in any action movie genre. So, why do I say pathetic? When the audience is thrown subplots, or extra information that is even more unbelievable than the movie's, "villain character's" acting... Well? What would you call it? For example, the police department and the government learn the villain's real name and location, and rather quickly, in the movie. At least in other espionage/action flicks, the bad guy will toss out a couple of red herrings to keep the "good guys" and audience wondering what's going to happen next. I was able to predict this movie's plot and ending, but it's times like this when I hate to be right. I guess the most intense guessing, wondering or predicting I did during the 90 minutes was... trying to figure out when the movie was going to end? Is this movie worth spending cash at the box office, or is it a wait-for-the-DVD type of flick? Definitely a wait for the DVD, as it is the most disappointing movie of the trilogy and will, no doubt, go straight to video within three months. 1.5/5 (and the half point was strictly for the guns, explosions, and computer generated effects. And, 1 point to Jason Statham for doing a good job in a stinker of a movie).
|