Rupert17 Follows the lives of seven London housemates from their youth in mid-1960s to the present day. Many of those well-known events during that era form the backdrop of the lives of the seven protagonists.Naturally there are many ups and downs in their personal lives and their particular interactions with each other. I know some use the word cliché to describe familiar situations, but much of a life lived is a cliché to all of us, but this doesn't mean it's not interesting or informative.Very strong cast of the younger and older versions of the seven characters and the script maintains a strong level throughout. If all you want from a miniseries are murders and heroics, then don't bother with White Heat. If you are after a genuine dramatic depiction of how ordinary people live their lives while the world seems to be imploding around them, then you'll get something out of this mini-series.

PAUL ROMNEY "White Heat" begins quietly and remains low-key, but it grows on you and the final episode yields a captivating surprise. Its strengths stand in contrast to the failings of "The Hour", another recent drama situated in recent British history. "The Hour" starts out looking like a thriller somehow related to the Suez invasion and Hungarian uprising of 1956; but the thriller plot fades into an inconsequential side-show and all that is left at the end is period soap-opera. "White Heat" follows its characters from 1965 to the present day, with public events mainly occurring in the background and serving as chronological markers, although they do impinge on the lives of two of the characters. Some aspects of the plot are stereotyped, but the drama scrupulously eschews soap-opera glitz, and the characters show plausible development--that's why it grows on you. The actors are generally excellent, but I did feel that the casting of Juliet Stevenson as the present-day avatar of Claire Foy's character was ill judged, since the appearance, styles and diction of the two actors are all strikingly dissimilar. It might have mattered less had the drama been chronologically divided between "then" and "now", but there is no way that the character portrayed by Foy over 35 years could have turned, in another 20, into the character played by Stevenson.

pavanratnaker Have to say I loved the drama. The story itself is well laid out and doesn't let go of you till the end. So in terms of dramatization have a say a job well done. The direction of this kind of work can be a tough job but has been very well handled. The constant shift between the past and the present can be tough to portray but here occurs quite seamlessly. The use of historical events does tend to give us a time line to follow and keep things in perspective. The actors have to say do a wonderful job especially the ones from the past, who tend to have most of the screen time. The actors in the present are seasoned and didn't have any problems with acting out their parts. Was hooked onto it from the first episode and it culminates well in the last, though it does leave you with the feeling like wanting a bit more. If it did continue then it'd become a soap hence thankfully it doesn't. All in all, an emotional drama which will hold sway with most of us and will manage to pull on a few heart strings too

jn-richards Couldn't disagree more with the previous reviewer. I found the characterisation to be subtle, the plot engaging and the denouement moving. I was an undergraduate in the early sixties so am a contemporary of the protagonists. Apart from the occasional idiomatic anachronism - nobody said 'A big ask' in the sixties - I found its depiction of the period convincing. Given that tastes differ - some people enjoy reading Jeffrey Archer - don't write the series off without giving it a try: one episode should be enough to see whether it grabs you or whether you find, like GTBarker, it's not your cup of tea.