Omar m'a tuer

Omar M'a Tuer is about an ordinary person who has been put in prison for a crime which he believes not having committed. Director Roschdy Zem portrays that there are very few possibilities for an ordinary man to defend his honor in a criminal case where the real culprit is enjoying his life elsewhere. As a part legal drama as well as part social commentary, Omar M'a Tuer is a socially relevant film about the ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system in France. About his decision to choose direction it needs to be stated that actors making their foray in the field of cinema is a positive development as they can give much needed boost to films which are based on original content. It can be surmised that while watching "Omar M'a Tuer", those viewers who know much about French culture and history would not hesitate a bit in drawing parallels between the film's tale and Emile Zola's infamous Dreyfus case. In both cases, public opinions were more in favor of underdogs who did not have much political power to pursue their cases.

How do you rebuild a life after a criminal accusation that is mainly supported by a foreign tribunal in a land where you feel totally out of place?

"Omar M'a Tuer" is a compelling portrait of an innocent man taken to justice when his alibis and ability of communication in a language he cannot master aren't enough to justify his being on the wrong place and the wrong time. This movie is quite an emotional ride, fast paced and very realistic, confirming the old saying that "justice is blind" could easily materialize around us when we least expect.

It is hard enough to prove a person's innocence by using veridical evidence when the main reason of such accusation cannot be verified against growing racism. It raises the question whether a citizen might receive the same treatment when clear prejudice from the Justice Department can be so compromising. Very good movie that not only tackles the never ending problem of legal injustice but also cultural misconception. Worth watching.

It's incongruous to compare Omar with Captain Dreyfus or OJ Simpson like some users did ;keep in mind that Omar was an uneducated illiterate simple gardener ,nothing to do with an army officer or a Hollywood actor!

The vital clue is the spelling mistake : the victim,who was an educated person would have written "Omar m'a tuer " : she had used the past participle (tuée) instead of the infinitive (tuer ) ;the tense here is the "passé composé" (translated by the past tense or the present perfect:here the latter)and it's the proof that this "clue" was written by a person who doesn't master French grammar ;nevertheless the accusation pointed out that,although educated , the victim had made this spelling mistake before, twice in documents . OK Omar took French lessons (I taught myself my language to migrants as a volonteer ),but in this case why would he have accused himself? He had only learned to write his first name.

As for the film ,it continues the tradition of the director championing the causes célèbres (or not so celebres), which André Cayatte had brilliantly begun in the fifties and which was carried on by people like Yves Boisset; unlike them, bald style, economy of means , sentimentality kept to the minimum (but essential ) ;Sami Bouajila gives a restrained performance ,but he makes us feel his humiliation, his pain and the fact that even if he was pardoned by President Chirac (much to his credit ) he was not cleared :so my favorite scene is the last in the bus when the girl recognizes him : his trial is not over .Omar believed in the French Justice, the country of Zola ,Hugo and Rousseau; but the rise of the far right wing certainly contributed to his travesty of a trial.

On June 24 1991, Ghislaine Marshall, a wealthy widow, is found murdered in the basement of her villa in Mougins, near Nice. An inscription on her door written with her blood reads, "Omar killed me" and automatically directs investigators to Omar Raddad, her Moroccan gardener who barely speaks French and is eventually sentenced to 18 years in prison, despite no evidence.

Based on true events, the case of Omar Raddad outraged the media at the time and questioned the very integrity of the French juridical system against foreigners. Raddad was tried in 1996, partially pardoned by then President Jacques Chirac in 1996 and finally released in 1998. In France, Omar is still considered guilty by the law, and this film, based on his autobiography, might be his last attempt to clear his name.

The film tells two stories; the investigation by writer Pierre-Emmanuel (Denis Podalydès), and Omar's time in prison. At the same time, we learn of Omar himself, a simple but stoic man, who didn't go to school, but believes in the honor of his name and that of his family.

As the film demonstrates, there were no traces of blood on his clothes, no indication of his presence at the crime scene. Evidence also points to the fact that he was somewhere else at the time of Marshall's death. But in a classic case of corruption, Omar is left to fight against a whole system. Results are manipulated, and Marshall's body is burnt to avoid further investigation. The frustration of his situation pushes Omar to go on food strike in prison – and desperation eventually that leads him to attempt suicide.

Sami Bouajila has an impressive approach to Omar – he doesn't talk much, but uses his eyes to express his predicament. Consequently, his sparse use of dialogue is all the more effective. "I have no more life, the judge destroyed it," he cries. The portrayal granted Bouajila the Best Performance Award at the 2011 Doha Tribeca Film festival, alongside a Best Arab Narrative Filmmaker award for director Roschdy Zem.

This is not a film with outstanding cinematic techniques, but presents a story rooted in reality and Omar's injustice. Zem solicits powerful performances from his cast, without mining the material for pity. The director is an actor himself and this, his second feature, presents the cause of Omar as unfinished business – justice has yet to be delivered.

Similarly, the investigation at the heart of "Omar Killed Me", even as it sets out to prove his innocence, allows the audience to look for clues, make connections and judge for themselves. We follow the investigation of a police drama which is based on fact and where the judges play devil's advocate. There is little conflict over Omar's innocence, but a dawning realization that those in power are readily able to gather their facts and manipulate them in order to convince those who already suspect Omar of the crime. In the end, the film shines a spotlight on a long forgotten case. One can't but respect a filmmaker who sets out to try and make a change.

A French educated lady is murdered. Before she died, she wrote on a wall with her blood "Omar m'a tuer". That's not correct grammar. She most probably didn't write that, but anyway her gardener is accused. And sentenced.

Is there justice for an Arab who can't read and write and don't know much French? Is he sentenced because of his origin, so the real killer instead can go free? We follow Omar and we follow the writer who tries to release him.

It's not your usual law drama, seen countless times on the screen. The drama is in fact not most important, but what's going on in people's mind. This is why you will remember this.