This is a very good season that keeps up the quality from its predecessor. The stories are consistently engaging and allow for some new perspectives on the Columbo character. After establishing the formula in season 1, this season gets to experiment with the stories and settings in ways that keep things exciting while retaining the series' core elements. The guest cast remains excellent, with a nice mix of classic Hollywood veterans and rising talent, while Falk's easy charisma is always a treat. The visuals keep the style of the first season and allows the murder plots and the humor to be more distinct from other mystery shows. This is a great season that works as a nice expansion of the series so far.
Robert De Niro in Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
Cast: Robert De Niro, Cathy Moriarty, Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, Nicholas Colasanto, Theresa Saldano, Mario Gallo, Frank Adonis. Screenplay: Paul Schrader, Mardik Martin, based on a book by Jake LaMotta, Joseph Carter and Peter Savage. Cinematography: Michael Chapman. Film editing: Thelma Schoonmaker.
Lots of people think Raging Bull is a great film. The American Film Institute in 2007 ranked it No. 4 in its list of 100 best American movies, behind Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941), The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972), and Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942). The 2022 Sight and Sound directors' poll of the greatest films of all time placed it at No. 22, in a tie with Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001), Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955), and The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966). It is certainly an accomplished film: Michael Chapman's cinematography uses black and white in ways that hadn't been seen since color came to dominate filmmaking in the 1950s; Scorsese and his editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, accomplish wonders, especially with the fight sequences and the occasional eruptions of violence; the set decoration by Phil Abramson, Frederic C. Weiler, and Carl Biddiscombe evokes the shabby milieu and its changes over the decades convincingly; and the performances of then-unknowns Joe Pesci and Cathy Moriarty made them into overnight sensations. And then there's probably Robert De Niro's greatest performance, which won him a best actor Oscar. The film critic Mick LaSalle likes to categorize Oscar acting nominations as either "transformations" or "apotheoses." In the former, actors create new images for themselves, while in the latter, they simply take their existing images and raise them to newly vivid heights. But in Raging Bull De Niro does both: He transforms himself into both the self-destructive young boxer Jake LaMotta and the bloated older LaMotta, living on his long-ago laurels, but he also brings something new and more intense to the existing image of De Niro as a fiercely inward actor. For these reasons, I think, the film makes many lists of the greatest films of all time. So why does it leave me cold? Why, among the Scorsese and De Niro collaborations, do I prefer Mean Streets (1973), Taxi Driver (1976), and Goodfellas (1990)? Is it that Mean Streets is more varied and colorful, Taxi Driver more probing in its exploration of psychosis, and Goodfellas smarter and wittier? Could it be that Raging Bull lacks texture, depth, and humor? Is it that Jake LaMotta is one of the most unsympathetic figures to receive a biopic treatment, or that Scorsese was never able to find a multi-sided personality in the screenplays credited to Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin that were worked over by both Scorsese and De Niro? In another American Film Institute ranking, Raging Bull was proclaimed the best sports movie of all time. But Scorsese has said that he doesn't care for sports in general and boxing in particular, and I think it shows. His movie is about the brutality of boxing, not about the sport that involves both offense and defense, and requires not only a well-honed skill but also intelligence -- or if not that, at least a greatly developed cunning. There is nothing of that in his portrayal of LaMotta. The movie's reputation, therefore, remains something of an enigma to me.
This is a very good story and a nice start for the second season. The episode's central plot is compelling and the various clues to the solution are implemented in natural and clever ways. The longer run time allows for more extensive character work and the introduction of Columbo's dog adds some levity to the episode. Columbo is in top form here and the new characters are given some interesting depths. Peter Falk remains great as Columbo and makes the character charming through his casual demeanor. John Cassavetes brings some charisma to the murderer and has a nice report with Falk. The supporting cast features some nice turns from Blythe Danner, James Olson, Anjanette Comer, Pat Morita, and Myrna Loy. The direction lets the episode have a quick pace while fitting in some nice stylistic flourishes. There are some unique camera compositions and use of shadows and screens that make this episode stand out from its predecessors. The classical pieces are implemented well and add to a major suspense sequence. This is a very good episode that ranks among the best of the previous season.