Critics’ reviews

Apple Cider Vinegar (2025)

14 reviews from 14 publications. Critics’ score 68: 9 positive, 3 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Apple Cider Vinegar

68
Positive
9
Mixed
3
Negative
2

Most critics respond positively to Apple Cider Vinegar, with praise clustering around Kaitlyn Dever’s portrayal of Belle Gibson. The reviews repeatedly single out her ability to convey public charm alongside private coldness and deception. Supporters also value the black humour, brisk storytelling and attention to the people harmed by wellness misinformation. For these critics, the series makes Gibson’s lies compelling without treating their consequences lightly, while showing why vulnerable people might believe her.

The spread is wide, however, and the chief disagreement concerns how much the series explains beyond the fraud itself. More reserved reviews find its treatment of wellness culture and social media superficial, even when the performances hold their attention. Variety argues that the fractured chronology and composite characters muddle its message; The Hollywood Reporter finds the shifts in time, tone and theme scattershot. Even some favourable reviews acknowledge structural problems and a slow-building first half.

The Guardian
6 February 2025
85*

The critic praises the series as a fast, witty and furious dramatisation of Belle Gibson's story, highlighting Kaitlyn Dever's masterly central performance. It is commended for balancing understanding of the character's flaws with condemnation of the harms caused by wellness misinformation.

Read the full review →
The Independent
10 February 2025
85*

The critic deems it necessary viewing in an era of misinformation and health scammers, praising its smart, timely take on post-truth culture through the Belle Gibson story. It highlights the agile production style, fourth-wall breaking and strong performances, especially Kaitlyn Dever's.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
3 February 2025 · ★★★★ · David Craig
80

The attention-gripping miniseries embraces the surreality of the central lies without minimising the harm and heartbreak they caused, offset by well-pitched black humour. Kaitlyn Dever excels at conveying both the charming public persona and colder private side of the lead character.

Read the full review →
The Telegraph
6 February 2025
80*

The review calls it a superb depiction of the wellness blogger who faked cancer and an innovative retelling that shows how and why the fraud occurred. It succeeds through a sensational performance from Kaitlyn Dever and its focus on truth, lies and misinformation.

Read the full review →
Empire
3 February 2025 · Sophie Butcher
75*

The glossy Netflix series about wellness influencers and deception offers plenty to enjoy thanks to its polished telling and magnetic central performance from Kaitlyn Dever, who captures the jittery, charming energy of the lead character. It decentres the main scammer effectively to highlight the tragic stories around her and shows empathy for why people fall for such claims.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
3 February 2025 · Hayley Spencer
70*

The series offers a compelling look at a serial scammer through Kaitlyn Dever's convincing performance as Belle Gibson, blending farce with real teeth in its tale of lies and fame. It contrasts wellness delusions with mainstream medicine while underscoring the ongoing relevance of misinformation.

Read the full review →
The Times
6 February 2025
70*

The series lays bare the devastating impact of online disinformation through its depiction of convicted scammer Belle Gibson. It presents an enraging portrait of a wellness guru who faked cancer.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
7 February 2025 · C+ · Proma Khosla
63

The series benefits from Kaitlyn Dever's compelling lead performance as Belle Gibson but delivers a soapy, surface-level take on wellness culture and social media with timeline-jumping structure and familiar scammer tropes.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
3 February 2025 · C+ · Saloni Gajjar
63

The limited series provides only skin-deep insights into the influencer industry and Munchausen syndrome despite strong performances from Dever and Alycia Debnam-Carey; it is an addictive but frustrating watch that feels like a slow-motion car crash.

Read the full review →
Variety
6 February 2025 · Alison Herman
50*

Despite a strong central performance, the series ends up muddled due to an unfocused structure that fractures the narrative over time and fails to settle on a framing device, diffusing its message about wellness culture and medical misinformation. It surrounds the lead with composite characters that tend to muddle rather than augment the points being made.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
5 February 2025 · Angie Han
40*

The based-on-a-true-story drama veers all over the place in time, tone and theme, serving up a little bit of everything but not enough of anything to fully sink its teeth into, making it feel scattershot and a bit stale. Dever's performance is persuasive, but the psychological portrait doesn't run deep and the multipronged approach gets frenetic without pushing hard enough on its smarter ideas about a toxic system.

Read the full review →
Vulture
5 February 2025
40*

The Netflix series rehashes a familiar scammer story with structural flaws, over-explanatory dialogue, and superficial treatment of wellness culture and social media, adding little new insight beyond typical streaming fare.

Read the full review →
NME
5 February 2025 · Rhian Daly
80*

The critic finds the limited series a compelling, knotty tale that deftly combines true crime, drama and thriller elements into a timely reminder about the dangers of trusting social media wellness stories. It praises the strong central performance and nuanced exploration of the characters involved.

Read the full review →
Collider
3 February 2025 · 7/10 · Jeff Ewing
70

Strong performances, especially Kaitlyn Dever's layered portrayal of the fraudster, elevate the emotional true-crime drama focused on victims, but structural issues and a slow-building first half blunt its impact and leave it short of its potential.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate