Colorized Version??:

It should never be colorized. It would diminish from the movie. Leave movies as is. Black and white films offer a greater atmosphere for the movie. It should feel dark, the movie isn't exactly supposed to be chipper.

Although, IMO, it makes no sense to EVER colorize a film, it makes even less sense to colorize a film that was made in B@W as the specific, aesthetic choice of the director.

I don't know if there ever was a colorized version made back when Ted Turner went on a colorizing binge. If such a version exists, it's probably long since been shelved, as it should be.

Note that this film was made at a time when color film did exist. Filmmakers went with black and white or color based on either cost reasons or for specific aesthetic purposes. In the era this was made, the Oscars even had a few technical categories divided based on whether a film was made in color or black and white. This film actually won in two of those categories (Best Art Direction Black and White and Best Cinematography Black and White). That cinematography win was well deserved, as I think this film has some beautiful black and white photography.

There's certainly a possibility that some on-set or promotional images for the film were taken in color. Another thing to consider is that home video covers for black and white films have often been colorized for some weird reason. They did it on VHS releases, and as you can see the trend has continued into Blu-Ray:

http://www.bluraywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/the-diary-of-anne -frank-blu-ray.jpg

This is presumably so that would-be consumers don't automatically look passed a film just because the cover is in black and white.

"God is nowhere, God is now here"
-Hey Nostradamus, Douglas Coupland

go to isohunt.com and download the color version there for free.



My feet smells like *beep* Its because I stepped on dog poop.

No movie should be colorized, and certainly not this movie.