How is the Colorized Version?




I'm usually dead against colorizing older B&W films. Many are most effective in Black and White.

However, like Harryhausen himself, I felt this film should have been originally shot in color.

It's encouraging to know that he supervised and approved of the colorization.

So, to those who have seen the color print, how is its quality? Good enough that you could fool a new viewer into believing it really was shot in color?

It's cool that the disks contain both versions.

reply

Imho, it's excellent. It doesn't have a "basic color key" like the dreadful sepia that infests one colorized version of It's a Wonderful Life. The colors are gorgeous, naturalistic, and understated. I too hate most colorizations, but - again, just my opinion - they did a fantastic job with this particular film.

reply

Overall, I like the colorized version, but the "night" scenes (day-for-night) are far too colorful and ruin the illusion. Compare both the color and BW versions of the BBQ scene about 10 minutes in (more or less) and the exterior scenes at the lab where they give the weapon its first real test. The colors should have been muted and bluer in those scenes to retain the illusion of night.

BB

reply

I watched the movie for the firs time tonight, and until I read this post, I would have swore it was shot in color. Going by that, I'd say it looks pretty damned good for a colorized film. Probably the best job I've seen. Not a bad flick at all really. On eof the better ones from the era, IMHO.

reply

Sorry, but it still looks cartoonish and fake to me...although it is better. The most accurate colorization was for the flames of the forest fire.

I'll put-up a new signature when I'm good and ready...

reply

Colorization is wrong. Too bad if you don't agree, it's still wrong.

reply