Not bad, but Ilsa’s hair isn’t quite right. 
I have some difficulty deciphering French when it’s speaken that rapidly, but that ain’t French. I believe it’s Persian, based on the comments.
Watching colorized movies is evil pure and simple.
No, no. *Making * colorized movies is evil.
Watching them is simply being ignorant or weak.
Artistic decisions are often tempered by economics. Color was more expensive to produce in those days. I’m sure many movies would have been made in color that weren’t due to limited budgets.
If color is so damn bad, why are almost all (99%?) movies made that way today?
Would you settle for Tiny Tim?
“Color” isn’t bad. “Colorized” is.
A colorized Casablanca is like a Special Edition Star Wars - something to be mocked, ridiculed, and hopefully forever removed from human experience.
I don’t have a big problem with colorization actually. First of all as mentioned above the choice between b&w and color has never been solely an artistic decision; it’s been primarily about economics and technology. The only period when there perhaps was a real choice was in the transitional period in the 50’s when both color and b&w co-existed. Before that color was very expensive and difficult and a major risk for the studio and after that color was almost a necessity at the boxoffice.
Secondly even if the original decision was artistic, so what? Don’t we have covers of songs often in a very different style? Don’t we have modern-dress versions of Shakespeare? We should think of colorization as a visual re-interpretation and judge it on how it works instead of dogmatically denouncing it. And there are many films for which colorization makes a lot of sense. Costume dramas for example. The Scarlet Empress would be a much better film in color.
I disagree. A cover song is in no way the same as colorization. If you want to do Casablanca in color, then remake it. That is a “cover version.” Messing with the original is just fucking with someone else’s art.
Wholly irrelevant, and utterly utterly wrong.
First of all, it doesn’t matter the reason black and white photography was used: once the decision was made, all the composition and lighting, etc., was done to emphasize the strengths of black and white photography. Scenes are lit differently, shot differently–it’s a vastly different artistic process. So you’re wrong on that count.
On the other count–The Scarlet Empress? THE SCARLET FRIKKING EMPRESS? One of the four or five most beautifully lit and beautifully photographed films–one of the greatest examples of chiaroscuro lighting–of all time–ALL TIME–worthy of comparison to the paintings of Caravaggio and El Greco? MUCH BETTER IN COLOR?
This is, of course, Cafe Society. And it’s extremely rare that the concept of “wrong” has any place here.
This is one of those times.
The same reason Three’s Company was the number one show of its day? The same reason J.D. Robb is the best selling author of all time? The same reason the Jonas Brothers have a career?
Hey! You dissin’ my fav shows and peeps! 
So what contemporary films (ca. 1980+) do you think would have been better if done originally – for artistic purposes – in black and white?
That’s not really possible for me to answer; if the movie has been done well in B&W, emphasizing its strengths rather than its limitations . . . who knows?
One of the problems is that most mainstream movies for the last few decades have put story and character in the back seat, with sensation and effect in the driver’s seat so to speak. (Although which one rides shotgun varies . . .)
I can answer this best by sending you back to watch the best movies of the 40s, 50s, 60s; some of them were in B&W, some of them in color. In each respective case–with the good ones, mind you–the medium’s strengths are emphasized.
Let me put it this way: after about 4 years of watching almost nothing on TV but TCM, I developed a conditioned response: all other things being equal, I find myself choosing an unknown B&W film over an unknown color film every time; I became conditioned to expecting a more satisfying movie experience.
There’s something you don’t see every day: an intelligent comment on YouTube:
“Making Casablanca in color is like making Alice in Wonderland in black and white.”
The colorized version of Casablanca deserves kudos and the eternal gratitude from any serious movie fan.
When the film was colorized, it sold in the low triple figures. The adaptation was such a flop that it effectively ended colorization completely. For that, we should be grateful.
You mean like this one?
Colorization is a *good *thing. Here’s why:
In order to make a colorized film, they first have to produce an excellent quality monochrome master with the widest gray scale possible.
Once they have this excellent monochrome master, it only makes sense to release it in addition to the colorized version. Not to do so would be foolish.
The studio can capitalize on the controversy - purists can get a better B&W version than they have ever been offered before while the unwashed masses can watch a colorized film that they would never watch in B&W.
Yes, there are plenty of great B&W films that I personally would never want to see in a colorized version. But there are plenty more that I would enjoy. “Yankee Doodle Dandy” with James Cagney was not made in B&W for artistic reasons, but because another studio had an exclusive on the color process. Three cheers for the black, white and gray?
Seriously, how much more of an abomination is the colorization of Casablanca than over-dubbing the vocals of the original actors?
I agree, Yankee Doodle would’ve been a thousand times better in color. Not that that’s saying much . . .
WTH is J.D. Robb?
Oh, God, don’t get me started on overdubbing. I loathe the practice. I’m not much of a movie watcher, but I just can’t do overdubs. I once rented Cinema Paradiso, not noticing it was the dubbed version, and got through about ten minutes of the movie before I went straight back to the video store to get the correct version. The English-with-Italian-accents was killing me.