Your Mommy Kills Animals (film) - Recognition

Recognition

Your Mommy Kills Animals has an overall approval rating of 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Variety reviewer John Anderson called the documentary "A miraculously evenhanded treatment of a snarlingly divisive debate," adding "There are no good guys or bad guys in this propulsive film, but there's enough in the way of odd characters and bad behavior to amuse and inform auds who only marginally care about the content."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette film critic Barry Paris reported that the film focused on the legal case of Josh Harper and Kevin Kjonaas after their having been arrested for eco-terrorism in the federal government'd enforcing of the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. He made note of the numerous celebrities interviewed, offering "There's not an objective one in the lot. I love 'em all."

Eye Weekly reviewer Jason Anderson wrote of the title, "It’s just one example of the extreme rhetoric and inflammatory tactics (sometimes literally so) that exist within the animal-rights movement, a broad category that actually includes an array of groups with differing philosophies and strategies when it comes to defending critters." He made note that the film dealt with subjects ranging from "the practices of the Animal Liberation Front to PETA’s courting of celebrities to the rescue of animals after hurricane Katrina," but stressed that the director focused on the 2006 trial of six Americans arrested for their involvement in the "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" campaign which had targeted a British corporation that does animal testing. He called the documentary smart and comprehensive in its dealing with the federal government's declaration that "animal rights extremists comprised America’s primary domestic threat."

Slant Magazine reviewer Sara Schieron wrote that although the film presented a portrait of the Animal Liberation Front, the organization does not include organizations such as PETA or The Humane Society of the United States. She noted that both these organizations declined to be interviewed by the filmmakers, and that the film concentrated on the grass-roots level as a "documentary for thinkers that offers dense and comprehensive representation of animal rights as movement, ethic, culture, and law."

Peter Martin of Cinematical wrote that the director explored the animal rights movement as inspired by "a post-9/11 FBI alert identifying animal rights activists as the number one domestic terror threat," and that he interviewed both activists and detractors alike in order to gain "as many points of view as possible."

Brian Dorf of eFilm Critic observed that Curt Johnson showed "a stance of directorial bravery that is seldom showcased," and appeared to not be "taking a side towards either extreme." He offered that the film "holds its ground impressively trying to tenderly extract points from both sides of the argument." In his review summary, he wrote that the film "is a difficult movie to watch, but an important one to consider."