Critics’ reviews

Toxic Town (2025)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 78: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Toxic Town

78
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Toxic Town, praising its account of the Corby toxic waste scandal for keeping the mothers and their fight for justice at the centre. Praise clusters around the cast, particularly Jodie Whittaker’s combination of fierceness and vulnerability, with Aimee Lou Wood also frequently singled out. The reviews value the attention paid to personal tragedy and working-class lives, finding the drama involving even when its approach feels familiar.

The reservations concern how neatly that struggle is packaged. Several critics find touches of sentimentality, gloss or over-explanation, though these rarely outweigh the performances. The Telegraph finds the courtroom scenes duller than the personal stories. The Evening Standard offers the strongest reservations, arguing that soapy conventions and overly villainous characters restrict the emotional depth. The spread is largely positive rather than sharply divided: most critics accept the conventional storytelling, while the dissent questions how much feeling it allows.

The i Paper
27 February 2025 · Emily Baker
90*

The critic deems the series compulsory viewing for its powerful account of the Corby toxic waste scandal and the mothers' fight for justice. It singles out Jodie Whittaker's astonishing lead performance and the expertly crafted suspense for praise.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
27 February 2025
80*

The critic finds the series a bittersweet, feelgood drama about mothers fighting corporate negligence in the Corby toxic waste scandal, praising the exceptional performances of Jodie Whittaker and Aimee Lou Wood as the central mothers. It notes some cheesiness and spoon-feeding but values the story's humanity and timely message about fighting greed.

Read the full review →
The Telegraph
27 February 2025 · ★★★★ · Anita Singh
80

The review highlights how the drama excels at detailing personal tragedies in the Corby case but finds the courtroom scenes duller and notes Netflix feels like an odd home for such a British story. It praises the cast, especially Jodie Whittaker, and calls it very watchable overall.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
7.5/10 · Jack Seale
75

The critic praises this as an impassioned, strongly cast true-story drama that sheds light on the little-known Corby poisoning scandal. It singles out the series for belatedly giving its working-class protagonists a powerful voice.

Read the full review →
The Independent
27 February 2025 · Nick Hilton
75*

The critic sees it as another entry in the 'British injustice' genre, like Mr Bates vs The Post Office, with a fine cast bringing a historic scandal to light. It praises the engaging characters and underdog spirit but notes it can feel too glossy and sentimental at times.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
27 February 2025 · Adam Bloodworth
65*

The review calls the series decently bingeable due to its shocking true story of the Corby waste scandal and strong performances from Jodie Whittaker and Aimee Lou Wood. It criticises the soapy conventionality that limits emotional depth and the overly villainous characters.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
27 February 2025 · Laura Jane Turner
85*

The series is a heart-wrenching account of mothers fighting relentlessly for justice after their children suffer birth defects from toxic waste. It stands out for Jodie Whittaker's fierce and vulnerable lead performance as the central mother driving the narrative, supported by a strong ensemble cast.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
28 February 2025 · Louisa Mellor
80*

The drama effectively dramatizes the real-life court case, emphasizing the human cost when profits are prioritized over safety and experts are ignored. It singles out the strong performances by Jodie Whittaker and Aimee Lou Wood in conveying the mothers' empathy and determination.

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