by Ada Igboanugo
The advert started with a young man walking out of the door, on his way for a date. The screen split into two to give us a dual situation of events and how both turned out with and without a MasterCard. Now if the producers or writers of the script had stuck to hat story, it would have turned out perfect.
So the young man remembered he was supposed to get a gift for his supposed date, in celebration of either an anniversary or a birthday, and he goes into a store to get one. He picks out his gift and heads to the counter to pay. In the first screen he is seen cashless with an empty wallet, while in the second screen he brings out a MasterCard.
Sticking to the first screen, after he notices he doesn’t have cash, he rushes to an ATM point. Now my question is, if he was not supposed to have card or cash, why did he head to an ATM point? Wasn’t he going to use a ‘card’ to withdraw money from the ATM? Why didn’t he use same card for the POS?
Or realistic if you were to look at it from another angle, but predictable would suffice easier because that is what would have been expected to have been written in the first place. Which goes on to say, the writers aren’t creative with their ideas, when it got to his turn at the ATM but was disappointed, as the machine was unable to dispense cash.
He finally heads to the bank, withdraws some money, gets the gift, makes way to the venue of the date amidst shortcomings such as mud splashes by oncoming cars, enters a taxi and forgets his wallet, only remembering when he is about to pay for the meal. The whole activity reeks of Cliché.