1. If you mean the 1990 remake then I can't believe you'd compare the two films as one is vastly superior in pretty much every way (of course I am referring to the 1968 version).
2. If you mean the "colorized" version of the 1968 film... why? It was filmed in B&W and a colorized version is not the original intended version of the film. If one can't appreciate that B&W films can look spectacular on blu-ray that's unfortunate. This particular release doesn't appear to be all that dazzling, but I can think of at least half a dozen B&W blu-ray discs that are absolutely stunning.
Actually, the 2004 "colorized" (to go with the American spelling) version by Legend Films was a surprisingly professional job and a far cry from the ghastly cartoonish 1986 Hal Roach Studios effort.
I watched the 2004 version out of morbid interest, expecting to be artistically offended, but had to admit that if you didn't know any better you'd swear it had been filmed in colour. They captured the look of 1960's colour film stock very well (I was reminded of the look of Hitchcock's "The Birds") and I was content that it faithfully represented the way the film would have looked had Romero used colour film stock.
Don't get me wrong - I love B&W film and I despair whenever I encounter people who won't have anything to do with B&W movies just because they are B&W - but I don't see any problem with including a colorized version AS WELL AS the original B&W version when the colour processing is of the kind of quality seen in the Legend Films version.
If it gets people to watch the film when they wouldn't have gone near it otherwise, then so much the better and I don't see the harm. Also, arguably, it helps "Night of the Living Dead" to sit better alongside its colour sequels. Remember: budgetary constraints rather than artistic concerns led George A Romero to use B&W film stock for the film. As I recall, he used colour film for every other film he ever made - with the exception of a few flashback scenes in "Martin". It's a fair bet that "Night of the Living Dead" would have been shot in colour if the production could have afforded it.
On those grounds, I can't see colorization of "Night of the Living Dead" as the same kind of complete and utter sacrilege that, say, colorizing Hitchcock's "Psycho" would be. As long as the colorized version is included as an optional extra to the unmodified film, surely everyone's happy?
My issue with colorization goes back to the original filmmaker. If they intended the film to be in black and white, that's a choice. Don't touch it. If black and white was their only option (budgetary reasons) but they shot the film to accomodate this format, colorizing the print without their permission or blessing is a violation. However, Ray Harryhausen supervised the computer-colorization of his old 50's films recently. He said if we had the money for color, we would have done it. With computer colorization, the process has gotten more sophisticated and 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH looks terrific. Again, this was because the orig filmmaker was involved. Colorization of NOTLD without Romero is an offense to him. But George has never received a dime from all of the illegal prints floating around out there due to copyright questions.
The remake of NOTLD is a great film on its own merit and it saddens me to see people deride it so quickly. The original is understandably held by many as the best version, but to say it's superior in every way is exaggerative. Pat Tallman's a better Barbara for one thing.