Below is an article on the dish known as Lasagna: LASAGNAThe Italian dish known as Lasagne has been popular for years here in the United States . . . ever since the arrival of immigrants from Italy. When the recipe for Lasagne first appeared in an American cookbook, I have no idea. But I discovered, to my surprise, that there are several theories to the origin of Lasagne.The first theory is that Lasagna originated from an Ancient Roman dish called lasana or lasanum (Latin word for "container", "pot") described in the book "De re coquinaria" by Marcus Gavius Apicius. Another theory is that the dish actually originated from an Ancient Greek dish called λάγανον (laganon). This dish was basically a flat sheet of pasta dough cut into strips.The most popular theory is that Lasagna originated in Naples, Italy during the Middle Ages. An early recipe for this dish first appeared in the early 14th century cookbook, "Liber de Coquina (The Book of Cookery)". It bore a slight resemblance to the more modern form of Lasagna. This early recipe featured fermented dough that is flattened into a thin sheet, boiled, sprinkled with cheese and spices, and eaten with the use of a small pointed stick. Later recipes also written in the 15th century recommended boiling the pasta in a chicken broth and dressing it with cheese and chicken fat, or in one case walnuts. This recipe was adapted for the Lenten Fast. The more traditional form of Lasagna - Lasagne di Carnevale - consisted of local sausage, small fried meatballs, hard-boiled eggs, ricotta and mozzarella cheeses, and a Neapolitan ragù sauce. The pasta dough prepared in Southern Italy for Lasagna used semolina and water. It used flour and eggs in Northern Italy, where semolina was not available. In modern-day Italy, the dough for commercial Lasagna is made from semolina (Durum Wheat). Below is a modern, yet traditional recipe for Lasagna from the All Recipes website:Easy Lasagna I RecipeIngredients1 pound lean ground beef1 onion, chopped 1 (4.5 ounce) canned mushrooms, drained1 (28 ounce) jar spaghetti sauce 1 (16 ounce) package cottage cheese 1 pint part-skim ricotta cheese 1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese 2 eggs 1 (16 ounce) package lasagna noodles 8 ounces shredded mozzarella cheesePreparationReheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).In a large skillet, cook and stir ground beef until brown. Add mushrooms and onions; saute until onions are transparent. Stir in pasta sauce, and heat through.In a medium size bowl, combine cottage cheese, ricotta cheese, grated Parmesan cheese, and eggs.Spread a thin layer of the meat sauce in the bottom of a 13x9 inch pan. Layer with uncooked lasagna noodles, cheese mixture, mozzarella cheese, and meat sauce. Continue layering until all ingredients are used, reserving 1/2 cup mozzarella. Cover pan with aluminum foil.Bake in preheated oven for 45 minutes. Uncover, and top with remaining half cup of mozzarella cheese. Bake for an additional 15 minutes. Remove from oven, and let stand 10 to 15 minutes before serving.
"SHENANDOAH" (1965) ReviewDuring my recent viewing of the 1965 movie, "SHENANDOAH", I came to the surprising conclusion that it proved to be entirely different than what I had assumed it would be. But it is not surprising that it would take several years for the movie to be appreciated by today's audiences than it was back in 1965. Like I said, "SHENANDOAH" is an unusual film. Set in 1864, during the U.S. Civil War, the movie is about the efforts of a sardonic Virginia farmer and widower named Charlie Anderson to prevent his sons from fighting in the war. Although, he is sympathetic toward the travails his neighbors face from the Union Army's presence in the Shenandoah Valley, he feels no obligation to fight on behalf of a state he believes had never help him maintain his farm. Nor does he support the Confederacy's pro-slavery stance. His neighbors seem willing to tolerate his pacifist stance, although a few like Pastor Bjoerling occasionally make barbed comments. Not long after his only daughter's wedding to neighbor and Confederate Army officer Sam and the birth of his first grandchild, Charlie's family fortunes take a turn for the worse. His youngest son, 16 year-old Boy, is captured by Union soldiers, while playing with his close friend Gabriel, a neighbor's slave. Boy had been wearing a Confederate Army kepi cap he had earlier found. When Gabriel informs the Anderson family of the news; Charlie, most of his sons and daughter Jennie leave to look for Boy. They leave James and his wife Ann at the farm with their young baby.While watching the first twenty to thirty minutes of "SHENANDOAH", one gets the impression of watching a warm family comedy-drama with a Civil War setting. I almost felt as if I were watching "THE WALTONS" in a 19th century setting. There are very few characters in uniform. The movie featured the Anderson family at home, at work and a mildly amusing scene of them arriving late at church during the beginning of the sermon. And when the war did infringe upon their lives, the family usually responded in humorous ways - namely their boisterous fight with a state official and soldiers trying to acquire horses for the army, and a stand-off between Anderson's sons and a group of army recruiters. By the time Charlie and his family set out to find the missing Boy, I felt certain that their adventures would be exciting, topped by a happy ending. Charlie and the rest of the Andersons got their happy ending. . . but at great costs, thanks to the Union Army, the Confederate Army and a group of deserters. The movie's growing dark tones and anti-war sentiments really took me by surprise, considering its earlier tone. But what really took me by surprise is that the movie's changing tone had been gradual, thanks to director Andrew V. McLaglen and screenwriter James Lee Barrett.There were scenes in "SHENANDOAH" that really impressed me. I enjoyed those scenes with Charlie's conversations with his future son-in-law, Sam, and his daughter-in-law Ann; due to their heartwarming nature, Charlie's outlooks on both his family dynamics and dealing with marriage, and fine performances from James Stewart, Doug McClure and Katherine Ross. However, his conversation with Union Army officer Colonel Fairchild really impressed me, thanks to Stewart and George Kennedy's performances, and the way the two men managed to emotionally connect on the horrors of war and fear of losing their sons. Boy's escape with a group of Confederate soldiers from a riverboat struck me as rather exciting. In one of the movie's earlier scene, Jennie Anderson had encouraged Gabriel to run away from his master. Not only did Gabriel run, he eventually joined the Union Army. This is probably why I found Gabriel's reunion on the battlefield with a wounded Boy emotionally satisfying. The friendship and warmth the two boys felt for each other had not wavered, despite finding themselves within the ranks of the opposite armies. And I was amazed at how both Philip Alford and Eugene Jackson Jr. managed to convey the close friendship of the two characters with hardly any words. However, I feel that the movie's two best scenes were featured in the Andersons' local church. The first church scene proved to be a very funny affair, thanks to actor Denver Pyle's skillful conveyance of Pastor Bjoerling's irritated reaction to the Andersons' late arrival in the middle of his sermon. The second church scene, which ended the film, was a beautifully acted and emotional that surprisingly left me in tears. It had the perfect mixture of relief, happiness and a little pathos that followed the emotionally draining aspects of the movie's second half. Even after nearly five decades, many people still talk about it.Despite my satisfaction with "SHENANDOAH", there were some aspects of it that I found troubling. Most of my dissatisfaction came from the movie's historical portrait of its setting. One of the Union soldiers that captured Boy proved to be black. The Union Army was not integrated in 1864. In fact, I do not believe it was ever integrated during the four years of the Civil War. And for the likes of me, I could not see how all of Charlie's six sons could have avoided military service during the war's first three years. His sons, especially Jacob, seemed to have minds of their own. I figured if they really wanted to fight in the war - whether for the Confederacy or the Union - they would have left the farm and join the military. I could not understand how someone as strong-willed as Jacob (who was the oldest) could have allowed his father to prevent him from joining the Confederate Army. And even if all the boys had wanted to remain on the farm, they would have been subjected to the military draft. The Confederacy had enacted the military draft about a year before the Union. And the Andersons were not rich or owned any slaves. I have one last complaint - a minor one at that. Some of the acting by the supporting characters in minor roles sucked. Period. I found their performances rather wooden and could not understand how they managed to get roles in an "A" production like "SHENANDOAH" in the first place.Flaws or not, I can honestly say that "SHENANDOAH" is one of the better Civil War movies I have ever seen. Instead of telling the story of the war from one side or the other, it told the story about a family that desperately tried to avoid being dragged into the chaos and tragedy of war . . . and failed. Thanks to a well-written script written by James Lee Bennett and a talented cast led by the even more talented James Stewart, director Andrew V. McLaglen crafted an excellent story about the Civil War that proved to be more emotional and surprising than I could ever imagine.
"ROSS POLDARK AND NOBLESSE OBLIGE""You are mistaken if you think greed and exploitation are the marks of a gentleman." - Ross Poldark to George Warleggan, "P0LDARK" (2015) When I first heard Ross Poldark speak those words to his nemesis, George Warleggan in Episode Eight of the current "POLDARK" series, I found myself wondering if Ross might be full of shit. Or perhaps he was either illusional . . . or a class bigot. Regardless, I could not help but roll my eyes at his remark.I realize that some might wonder how I could accuse Ross Poldark . . . Ross Poldark of class bigotry. This man has been a champion of the working-class in his little part of Cornwall. He has managed to befriend his workers. He has spoken out on behalf of them and other members of their class. And he has been willing to make any effort to come to their aid - especially those who work on his land, even if he sometimes come off as patronizing. He has certainly expressed anger when he believed any of them has needlessly suffered, due to the actions of the upper-class or other wealthy types. Ross had spent days in a state of drunken anger after one of his former employees, Jim Carter had died after spending over a year in prison for poaching. He had also married his kitchen-maid, Demelza Carne, despite the tongue-wagging of his elite neighbors and family members.Also, one cannot deny that the Warleggans deserved Ross' scorn. George Warleggan's grandfather had been a blacksmith who eventually became a moderately wealthy man. His sons - George's father and uncle Cary - acquired even more wealth, leading the family to become their parish's wealthiest bankers. George was the first in his family to be and his family were a money hungry bunch that resort to grasping ways - legal or illegal - to not only acquire money, but also rise up the social ladder in order to become part of Cornwall's upper-class. They are pretty much an ambitious and venal bunch who do not seemed to give a rat's ass about the suffering of the lower classes. They also seemed willing to inflict suffering upon them for the sake of greater profits and social respectability. And yet . . . the interesting thing about the Warleggans is that they had managed to acquire great wealth on their own - meaning without the help of some aristocrat or member of the landed gentry.So, why did I have a problem with Ross' words? Were viewers really expected to believe that only noveau riche types like the Warleggans were capable of greed and exploitation? History tells us that the landed gentry and the aristocracy were just as guilty of greed and exploiting not only their workers, but their land, despite occasional moments of taking care of those beneath them when times were tough. And yet, I get the feeling that those moments of compassion stemmed from the idea of "noblesse oblige" - people of noble birth being duty bound to take responsibility for the well being of those under their patronage or employment. However, "noblesse oblige" had not prevented aristocrats and members of the landed gentry from engaging in years of exploiting their land, their tenants and their employees; living greedily from their profits, and doing a poor job of managing their money led to a decrease in their wealth. This was the case for Polarks, the Chynoweths and other upper class families - fictional or not - who found themselves cash poor by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. British landowners had been enclosing their lands - forcing tenant farmers to become agricultural laborers - since the late seventeeth century, at least a century before George Warleggan had enclosed the Trenwith estate, following his marriage to Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark. And they continued to do so well into the nineteenth century.If Ross regarded himself, his uncle Charles Poldark, his cousin Francis Poldark and other members of the landed gentry like Sir Hugh Bodrugan, the Treneglos, Ray Penvenen and Unwin Trevaunance as "gentlemen", then his comments to George were spoken in error. Most, if not all, of these gentlemen were capable of greed and exploitation. Ross might occasionally criticize the behavior of his fellow members of the upper-class, just as he had did following the death of his former employee, Jim Carter. But he has never expressed antagonism toward them with the same level that he has toward the Warleggans. It is quite obvious that he regarded these men as "gentlemen". He seemed to have no problems with socializing or forming a business enterprise with them. And if this is the case, I cannot help but wonder about the true reason behind Ross' antipathy toward the Warleggans. Had Ross' antipathy originated with his exposure of the Warleggans' cousin, Matthew Sanson, as a card cheat? I rather doubt it. Ross and some of his other acquaintances had been making snide comments about the Warleggans' rise in wealth since the series began. No matter how many times George tried to befriend Ross throughout most of Series One, the latter would dismiss his effort with a sardonic or nasty comment. Yet, Ross seemed to have no problems with socializing with the likes of the snotty Ruth Teague Treneglos and her ineffectual husband; the money grasping blue-blooded politician Unwin Trevaunance, who sought heiress Caroline Penvenen's hand for her money; or the self-absorbed Sir Hugh Bodrugan, who seemed to have no concern for anyone or anything, aside from his own pleasures - including Demelza Poldark, whom he pursued like some aged satyr. Even Ross is not the epitome of "gentlemanly" sainthood. He seemed so hellbent upon finding a wealthy source of copper or even tin from his mine, Wheal Grace that he failed to consider that he lacked the funds to ensure a safe environment for his workers. This determination to strike a lode without any safety measures led to an accident and the deaths of a few men. And his aggressive, yet adulterous actions against his widowed cousin-in-law (I might as well be frank - his rape of Elzabeth) in the eighth episode of Series Two made it perfectly clear that "gentleman" or not, Ross can be repulsive. And yet, despite all of this, Ross seemed to regard the Warleggans as an unworthy lot. I am not saying that George and his uncle are a nice bunch. They can be just as repulsive and greedy as their upper-class neighbors. And on several occasions, the Warleggans have made derisive comments about Demelza, who happened to be a miner's daughter. All this tells me is that contrary to Ross' comment to George, the latter's family is no better or worse than the other upper-class characters in the "POLDARK" saga. They are quite capable of being snobs. But what about Ross? Is he a snob? He may be friendly toward his workers and willing to help them out, but his friendly and compassionate regard for them seemed to have a patronizing taint. In fact, his love toward his working-class wife Demelza seemed to have the same taint.Although his good friend, Dr. Dwight Enys, managed to rise from his working-class background to become a doctor, he did so with the help of upper-class patronage. And Ross provided his own patronage toward Dwight in helping the latter establish a medical practice in their part of Cornwall. Ross even helped Dwight in the latter's romance with the blue-blooded Caroline Penvenen. I cannot help but wonder if the Warleggans had the benefit of "noblesse oblige" - namely an upper-class mentor to guide them in their rise to great wealth, would Ross have been less hostile toward them? Perhaps it is one thing for Ross Poldark to help the lower classes have a better life - by offering them jobs or homes, providing patronage for someone with potential like Dwight Enys, or marrying his kitchen maid. It is another thing - at least for him - to tolerate people from the lower classes like the Warleggans to rise up in wealth through their own efforts and not via the benefit of the "noblesse oblige". And my gut instinct tells me that the Warleggans’ rise via their own grit, ambition and brains was something that Ross could not stomach.
"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" (2017) ReviewI have a confession to make. When the Disney Studios had released the fourth movie in the "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN"franchise, I wished they had never done it. I wished that a fourth film had never been made. I also believed that the franchise was fine after three movies. Then I learned that a fifth film was scheduled to be released this summer and . . . yeah, I was not pleased by the news. But considering that I can be such a whore for summer blockbusters, I knew that I would be watching it. Directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" seemed to be a story about the search for the trident of the sea god Poseidon. Two years after the post-credit scene from 2007's "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END", Henry Turner, the son of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann Turner boards the Flying Dutchman to inform his father of his discovery that the mythical Trident of Poseidon is able to break the Flying Dutchman's curse and free him from his ship. Henry plans to seek Jack Sparrow's help to find it. Will does not believe the Trident exists and orders Henry to leave his ship and stay away from Jack. Nine years later, Henry finds himself serving aboard a British Royal Navy warship as a seaman. He realizes the ship is sailing into the Devil's Triangle. The captain dismisses his concerns and has Henry locked up for attempting a mutiny. Upon entering the Triangle, the ship's crew discovers a shipwreck that belongs to a Spanish Navy officer named Captain Armando Salazar and his crew, who had become part of the undead after being lured into the Triangle. Salazar and his crew slaughter everyone on board the warship, except for Henry. Discovering that Henry is searching for Jack, Salazar instructs Henry to tell Jack that death is coming his way. Some twenty to thirty years earlier, Salazar was a notorious pirate hunter who had been lured into the Triangle and killed by Jack, who was the young captain of the Wicked Wench at the time. Due to the Triangle's magic, Salazar and his crew became part of the undead. Years later, a young woman named Carina Smyth is about to be executed for witchcraft on the British-held island of Saint Martin, due to her knowledge of astronomy and horology. She is also interested in finding the Trident, for she sees it as a clue to her parentage. During a prison break, she gets caught up in an attempt by Jack and his small crew, which includes Joshamee Gibbs and Scrum (from the fourth film), to steal a bank vault on the island of Saint Martin. Jack is abandoned by his crew when the vault turns up empty. Desolate, he gives up his magical compass for a drink at a tavern and unexpectedly frees Salazar and his crew from the Triangle. He is also captured by the British Army. Carina meets Henry, who is awaiting execution for what happened aboard his ship. Both realize that for different reasons, they are searching for Poseidon's Trident. Henry escapes, but Carina finds herself a prisoner again. Henry arranges both hers and Jack's escape from execution. Jack also becomes interested in finding the Trident, for he hopes to use it free himself from Salazar's wrath.I once came upon an article that complained about the lack of consistency in the "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN" franchise. When I first heard about this movie, I must admit that I was annoyed to learn that Will Turner would still be entrapped by the Flying Dutchman curse after the post-credit scene from "AT WORLD'S END". I realize that the Disney suits had believed that Will was permanently trapped by the Flying Dutchman curse, but I thought that Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott's claim - that Elizabeth's ten year wait - had broken the curse. Apparently I was wrong . . . and annoyed at the same time. But Will's situation was a mere annoyance for me. The situation regarding Jack's compass - you know, the one that directs a person to one's heart desire - really annoyed me. According to the 2006 movie, "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST", Jack had first acquired the compass from Vodou priestess Tia Dalma aka the goddess Calypso. Yet, according to a flashback in this movie, Jack was given the compass from his dying captain, during the Wicked Wench's encounter with Captain Salazar. What else is there to say, but . . . blooper.Another matter that annoyed me was the setting for the protagonists' final battle against Captain Salazar and his crew. I wish I could explain it. I believe that the setting was located . . . underwater, thanks to the mysterious stone that Carina Smyth had inherited from her parents. I simply found it murky and unsatisfying. And I wish that final conflict had been set elsewhere. I have one last complaint. The movie's post-credit scene featured a character's dream of former antagonist Captain Davy Jones in shadow form. The character had awaken, but the scene's last shot focused on puddles of water and a few bits of tentacles. Was this the franchise's way of hinting the return of Davy Jones? I hope not. Captain Jones was a great villain, but two movies featuring his character were enough. The last thing I want to see in another film is the return of the Flying Dutchman curse or Jones.Yes, "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" has its flaws. But it also had plenty of virtues that made me enjoy the film. One of the aspects of the film that I enjoyed was the story written by Jeff Nathanson and Terry Rossio. Old "ghosts"from the past have always played a role in the plots from the franchise's past four films. But the past played a major, major role in this film for not only Jack Sparrow, but also four other characters - Henry Turner, Carina Smyth, Hector Barbossa and even Captain Armando Salazar. I found the story between Jack and Captain Salazar rather ironic, considering that the latter proved to be the franchise's first villain to seek personal revenge against the former. For the other three, I found their stories rather poignant in the end. And because of this, I found "DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" to be the most emotionally satisfying entry in the franchise. This proved to be the only PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film in which I broke into tears at least three times. Poignant or not, the franchise's trademark humor and action were on full display in this movie. In fact, I can think of at least three major scenes that I believe effectively displayed both traits. One of them involved Jack and the Dying Gull (appropriate name for Jack's latest ship) crew's attempt to rob the new bank on Saint Martin. Not only did it lead to Carina's first escape from a hangman's noose, but also a merry chase that involved the Dying Gull's crew, the British Army, along with Jack and the banker's wife inside of a stolen vault. The second scene that had me both laughing and on edge involved Henry and the Dying Gull's successful rescue of Jack and Carina from being hanged. The third scene had me more on edge than laughing for it involved Jack, Henry and Carina's attempt to survive Salazar's attack upon their rowboat (ghost shark anyone?) as they headed for shore."DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" featured the fourth major location for the movie franchise - Australia. Although I found it a pity that the movie did not use any of the Caribbean islands for filming locations, I must admit that production designer Nigel Phelps made great use of the Australian locale, especially in his creation of the Saint Martin town and the Turners' home. On the other hand, I found Paul Cameron's photography rather beautiful, colorful and sharp. I thought Roger Barton and Leigh Folsom Boyd's film editing was first-rate, especially in the action sequences that featured the bank vault chase, the rescue of Jack and Carina, and the shark attack. I wish I could say the same about the final action sequence, but I must admit that I was not that impressed.I was impressed by the performances featured in "DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES". The movie possessed a first-rate supporting cast that featured the return of Kevin R. McNally as Joshamee Gibbs, Stephen Graham as Scrum, Martin Klebba as Marty, Angus Barnett as Mullroy and Giles New as Murtogg. Scrum, who was last seen as part of Hector Barbossa's Queen Anne's Revenge crew, had decided to join Jack Sparrow's crew aboard the Dying Gull. And the presence of Marty, Mullroy and Murtogg revealed that Barbossa was not the only who had escaped Blackbeard's capture of the Black Pearl. The movie also revealed the return of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley as Will Turner and Elizabeth. Their final reunion near the end of the film proved to be one of the most emotionally satisfying and poignant moments in the entire franchise.There were other great supporting performances that caught my eye. One came from David Wenham, who was in fine, villainous form as Lieutenant John Scarfield, a very bigoted Royal Navy officer who was after Jack, Henry Turner and Carina Smyth. Golshifteh Farahani gave a rather interesting and strange performance as a witch named Shansa, whom many seafarers sought for advice. Adam Brown (from "THE HOBBIT" Trilogy) and Delroy Atkinson proved to be entertaining additions to Jack's crew and the franchise. Juan Carlos Vellido gave a rather intense performance as Captain Salazar's first officer, Lieutenant Lesaro. Since Keith Richards was unable to return as Jack's father, Captain Edward Teague, producer Jerry Brockheimer managed to cast former Beatles Paul McCartney as the former's brother and Jack's uncle, Jack Teague. And I did not know that McCartney was not only a first-rate actor, but one with great comic timing. I had been familiar with Brenton Thwaites' previous work in movies like "MALEFICENT" and "GODS OF EGYPT". But I was surprised by how much I enjoyed his portrayal of Will and Elizabeth's son, Henry Turner. Thwaites did an excellent job in combining the traits of Henry's parents, while making the character a complete individual on his own. Kaya Scodelario was equally effective as science enthusiast, Carina Smyth. Thanks to Scodelario's skillful performance, Carina was an intelligent and charismatic woman. The actress also had a strong screen chemistry with her co-star, Thwaites.But the three performances that stood above the others came from Geoffrey Rush, Javier Bardem and of course, Johnny Depp. It is hard to believe that Rush first portrayed Hector Barbossa as a slightly crude, yet cunning, cold-blooded and ambitious pirate. Thanks to Rush's superb portrayal, Barbossa still possessed those traits, but the latter had developed into a successful man, who also possessed a heartbreaking secret that he managed to keep close to his chest. I must admit that I did not particular care for Javier Bardem's portrayal as a Bond villain in 2012's "SKYFALL". I found it too hammy. Thankfully, Bardem's portrayal of the villainous Captain Armando Salazar seemed a great deal more skillful to me. Bardem's Armando Salazar was no mere over-the-top villain, but a vengeful wraith willing to use any method and form of manipulation to capture his prey. Someone once complained that Depp's Jack Sparrow seemed different or a ghost of his former self. I could not agree. Depp's Sparrow was just as selfish, manipulative, horny and humorous as ever. Yet, this Jack Sparrow was at least nineteen years older than he was in "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END". Despite having a miniaturized Black Pearl in his possession for several years, Jack has been forced to settle for a creaking tub called the Dying Gull and a small crew. Worse, he and his men have experienced a series of failures in their attempt to make that great score. If Jack seemed a bit different in this film, it is because he is older and not as successful as he would like to be. And Depp, being the superb actor that he is, did an excellent job in conveying Jack's current failures in his performance.Would I regard "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" as my favorite film in the Disney franchise? Hmmm . . . no. The movie possessed one or two bloopers in regard to the franchise's main narrative. I was not that impressed by the watery setting for Jack and Salazar's final confrontation. And I did not care for the hint of a past villain's return in the film's post-credit scene. But I really enjoyed the excellent performances by a cast led by the always talented Johnny Depp and the first-rate direction of Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. And I especially story created by Jeff Nathanson and Terry Rossio. Not only did it feature the usual hallmarks of a first-rate PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN film, for me it made "DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" the most poignant and emotionally satisfying movie in the entire franchise.
