User Reviews (109)

  • screenman30 October 2008
    1/10
    Deadenders
    Warning: Spoilers
    It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

    The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

    I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

    Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned...

    What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

    Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

    I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

    Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

    Avoid it like the plague.
  • Dave17 April 2017
    2/10
    Full of repulsive characters
    This has been one of the BBC's most popular programmes continuously since it began in 1985 - but I can't understand why millions of people still watch it.

    In the '80s it was entertaining - with characters like Den and Angie Watts and their adopted daughter Sharon. The vast majority of the characters now and in recent years are nasty, selfish people. There are very frequent rows, threats and violence. It's not entertaining in the slightest. How is the audience supposed to care about, root for or sympathise with any of these dreadful people?

    It's unrealistic in portraying most of the residents of the East End of London as working-class whites who all know each other well. In real life, most of the people who live there are non-white and/or are rich - and many people don't know their neighbours. The large majority of working-class white Londoners moved out of London years ago.
  • Phil Watts28 December 2004
    Utterly painful to watch
    I've never been sure if soaps are supposed to simulate real-life. If they are meant for this purpose, that's got to be the biggest waste of time in history. Why simulate real-life? We can all admit that most of our lives are repetitive and dull, so why would anyone want to watch a simulation of that, played out by people who don't even exist?

    Eastenders is unconvincing to the extreme. Nobody seems to own a computer, washing machine or car. People seem to buy shares in local businesses within a matter seconds, with someone owning "half the Arches" or "half the Vic". Sam walks around with "the books", which really are books! Most business managers have computers and accountants to do that for them. Those who run stalls on the market like to leave their livelihoods with friends, simply handing over their money pouches. They're the lucky ones - a lot of the cast don't have jobs at all so how they manage to survive in east London is beyond me.

    The "gangsters" are so unrealistic it's hard to watch. The scripts are terrible, mainly down to watershed restrictions, so the writers cannot include most swear-words and are forced to use words like "moron", "idiot" and "wally" which don't really work on the same scale.

    Strangely enough, soaps are the shows that are watched the most in the UK, and I don't understand this. Numerous soap magazines are on the shelves, and these tell us what's going to happen in the coming weeks, so nobody really needs to watch at all.

    I don't understand the concept of soaps, why anyone feels the need to watch and why there are so many.
  • peter609 March 2002
    The direst programme on TV?
    Sorry, folks, to buck the trend and fly in the face of the perceived wisdom which says that EastEnders is the best soap - even the best programme - on TV, but I think it is the most overrated programme of all. A good drama should make us think, should move us, inspire us, stretch our minds, and enable us to identify with the ups and downs of the lives of its characters. However, with EastEnders no intellectual effort is required at all when watching each unfolding episode, because the plots are so laboriously developed, and the dialogue and acting so predictable and patronising to the viewer. Far from being uplifting and inspiring, the storylines are so dire and constantly negative as to leave the viewer feeling thoroughly depressed. In the name of "realism" the stories are in fact unreal and sensational, and not reflective of real life at all. Just as British viewers would, quite wrongly, assume Australians to be shallow and superficial if we were to believe the way they are portrayed in Australian soaps, then surely Australians and Americans must think that life in Britain is pretty dire and depressing, if they believe that EastEnders is representative of the lifestyle of the average working class Briton. When will British viewers remove the blinkers and see this programme for what it is - cheap, sensational, ratings-driven, self-indulgent and catering to the lowest common denominator and basest instincts of its mass audience. Have we no imaginative, innovative and ground-breaking screenwriters left in Britain, and where are the new generation of great British actors to come from? Not, I believe, from the ranks of Britains "best" soap.
  • Auntie_Inflammatory24 January 2016
    7/10
    You're more attractive and successful than you think!
    I'm an American who has watched "EastEnders" on and off on my local PBS station over the last 15 years. I find the show fascinating and it's not because the plots are particularly original or the acting is so amazing. It's not the "exotic" location either, I've been to London a couple of times. No, the reason I can't stop watching "EastEnders" is because it's the complete polar opposite of an American soap opera!

    On an American soap opera, everyone is attractive or at least above-average looking. On EastEnders, (although they will occasionally throw in an attractive person to confuse you, I mean is Rosie's older daughter a super-model for that neighborhood or what?) everyone is pretty much average to below-average looking. There's one character who always looks like he's in desperate need of a blood transfusion and another who is quite simply the ugliest human being I've ever seen on scripted television.

    On an AS, everyone is always fashionably dressed and impeccably groomed. I don't think you ever even see anyone in the same outfit twice. While watching EE, I sometimes wonder if the actors didn't do their own hair and makeup and bring clothes from home. On second thought, most of the actors would probably dress better than their characters.

    On an AS, everyone has a glamorous and/or high-profile and/or high-paying and/or highly- respected career, e.g. doctor, model, cosmetics tycoon, writer, chief of police (even if they only appear to be about 20 years-old!), etc. On EE, the characters work in stalls at the street market, in pubs, cafés, garages, and laundromats. The most successful guy in the neighborhood is the guy who owns the café.

    You really can't help but feel pretty good about yourself and your life after watching EE.

    There are some other characters on EE that you typically wouldn't see on an AS, like a 14 year- old (who looks like a 12 year-old) girl with a baby and a man who seems to be in at least his mid-forties who can't read or write. One nice thing is that the writers don't seem to consider people over the age of 40 too old for romance. People in their 40s, 50s, 60s and older are depicted dating and even getting married. I've laughed out loud at a few hilarious moments involving horny seniors Pat, Patrick and Big Mo.

    My favorite character is Dot Cotton/Brown, the church-lady type who gets some good lines. The actress who plays her is 88 years-old and it's pretty impressive that she's still working a grueling soap schedule and memorizing tons of dialogue.

    Is EE a great show? No. Is it even a very good show? No. Will I keep watching? Well, yeah. We only get 2 episodes a week in the States (we're 10 years behind the UK, episode-wise), that's not enough to kill the novelty factor. I wouldn't watch "Days of Our Lives" but I'll watch "EastEnders" and feel like a successful super-model when the end-credits roll!
  • Ryan Smith2 June 2014
    6/10
    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times
    Where to begin? Where to end? I never miss an episode of Eastenders. But is that saying it's so good that I can't bear to miss it? Not at all. It's not as good as it used to be, obviously. Gone are the days of truly shocking and scandalous story lines. We were hooked on "Who Shot Phil?" We were hooked on Max and Stacey's affair behind Bradley's back. Countless more mentions can be made, but I can't be bothered to write anymore haha. Hooked and shocked. That was once the magic Eastenders had on us. Now, where has it all gone? But, I will say, there is still hope for this once beloved soap. Lucy's murder wasn't all that, and the wait they are keeping us on is a bit much. However, it's the performances of it's actors that will keep me coming back for more. Adam Woodyatt has been particularly brilliant in the unfolding storyline. The writers would be wise to keep focus on him rather than anybody else at the moment, and to surround him by the best actors around.

    And that's the point. Eastenders has been a hit and miss over the recent years. But I feel, if they can play their cards right, they can bring it back to top form. Never to the heights of several years ago, that's impossible. But it can be repaired.

    6 out of 10, for that little bit of brighter future.
  • BrythonElis24 January 2008
    1/10
    Insulting and corrosive
    This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...

    How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly?

    It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.

    This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.

    Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.

    Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.

    And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.
  • beesonthebeach9 April 2015
    1/10
    Predictable week in, week out tension and shock tactics
    How can people be addicted to this rubbish. It's the same old story lines, just mixed up, repeated and revolved, over and over again. I bet the producers have a list that goes something like this . . . argument, divorce, fight, name calling, awkward moment, bankruptcy, pub standoff, family feud, an affair, a car accident, an unwanted person from the past turning up, a troublemaker, a mafia type guy, a bad boy thing happening, a faulty toaster etc . . . I think that The Sun red-top newspaper lovers or The Daily Sport readers in England would probably argue otherwise - but I would guess that they just cycle through a list of tragedies and film a few weeks in advance, because there is redundant cinematography, dogmatic camera angles and filming techniques, plus just the same old list of tragedies cycling week in, week out, with the odd awkward happy moment being used as contrast between the 10 odd tragedies being thrust at us in blocks. I have been forced to watch Eastenders on many a Christmas meal visiting relatives in England. Everybody sits on the sofa at the time of the airing, where electricity is drawn from France as the show is so popular, then in the meantime I am subjected to what is like reading through the Daily Sport's past year back issues whilst witnessing a kind of public execution in originality and taste. It is torture much more arduous than physical forms of torture. It is like watching a chef making instant noodles and everyone clapping and saying "Yay, what a great meal that was!" If I had to sum this show up in a sentence, I'd say that it is 'predictable Daily Sport (red tabloid shock headline) material translated into video'. It has become a parody of Britain's view on negative events as being somehow more 'realistic' than positive events. Other shows are following suit on the revolving tragedy storyline method, and who can blame them as it works, because there are enough people addicted to drama not to see the monotony in it all, such as coronation street and Emmerdale farm have. Again, who can blame them. But really, can't people see the commercial spin of weaving these same old dramatic situations week in, week out? Or is it just me - is it wrong for me to feel bored watching the 127th affair, or 245th family argument or the 1245th shouting match?
  • racheysim1 December 2006
    10/10
    Leslie Grantham
    EastEnders was superb from 1985-1989 when Den was in it. They should have done more with him on his return in 2003. He was by far the best character the show has ever had.

    The characters were much more interesting in 85-89 and the story lines were far superior. These days the characters change personalities overnight and the story lines are so bland that nobody cares.

    It's a sad as the show has gone downhill so much. Den should never have been killed off the second time around. He had just got back into the Vic. What a waste.

    If you are interested in following Leslie's career post EastEnders go to: www.gorgeousgrantham.com
  • HillstreetBunz15 January 2015
    1/10
    Unremittingly awful in every way
    Coarse, vulgar, repetitive, clichéd, unimaginative, tawdry, aggressive, nasty, this feeble excuse for entertainment seeks out the worst aspects of human nature and magnifies them across a community, never contrasting them in any meaningful way with any of the characteristics that make living in human society tolerable, let alone joyous. New writers seem to buy into the milieu immediately (yes that word, I don't apologise for erudition) by recycling plots, adultery, rape, murder, gangsters, family betrayal, sexual abuse, etc. etc. etc. in this supposedly ordinary London square. In the UK they used to call these 'continuing drama serials', but this truly is 'soap' in the American sense, trite observations on supposedly current societal shifts, hypocritical public defences of 'shocking' and 'offensive' material broadcast in the early evening on a public channel, the constant refrain that 'we merely reflect society' as if that is any defence to the constant depiction of ever coarsening human relations. If I make the mistake of being on this channel as the theme music starts up, my mouth dries and my mood sinks as I reach to turn the TV over, or at least change channels! Save yourselves from this opiate for the foolish, run, run fast, run far and keep on running!
  • beresfordjd31 January 2010
    1/10
    Unremittingly awful
    My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.
  • MarkNorthernIreland19 May 2005
    I cant believe i have to pay for this drivel!
    Well, unfortunately this is on our TV's almost every day I think.. As you sit down to your dinner, or relax for a minute, you turn on your TV... and what are u confronted with??? DOT COTTONS decayed face! Its depressing to know that I am FORCED by LAW because i own a TV, to pay the BBC to keep creating this drivel. The actors and actresses, as untalented as they are, must be laughing at their 'tax collector' status. No matter how poor, or how insulting the show is... I (Like everyone else in Britain) will continue to pay the BBC and the producers of the show, simply to avoid a huge fine. Has there ever been an episode when someone hasn't cried? Do these people ever leave this bloody street? After all this time, and not leaving this street, are they all inbred? Is there anywhere else to work other than a bar, and a chip shop? I bet even the cast cant bear to watch it TV.

    Anyway, i can go on all day about how much i hate it, and others like it. Bottom line is, this is not entertaining, its pure concentrated vermin excrement. The only reason it is still around is because its funded by extortion money.
  • Shazzer307 January 2003
    The best and most realistic soap you're not watching
    BBC America runs an omnibus once a week of this popular British soap opera. If you don't get BBC America, call your cable company and ask about digital cable- it's generally only about 10 bucks more a month than regular cable, and you get more channels. That said, I was hooked from the first time I watched "EastEnders" a little over a year ago. It took a few episodes and a book ("EastEnders Who's Who", available from amazon.com)for me to catch on, but it was worth it. These characters, although sometimes predictable (cheating exes, guy gets fatal brain tumor, etc,)are more realistic than any lame-o American soap- maybe because they don't sport red sequinned dresses and 5 pounds of make-up at 10:30 a.m. on a Tuesday. There's a chock full of good stuff happening in Albert Square- call you cable operator and get the Beeb if, for nothing else, this fabulous show!
  • Churchill Tank21 December 2008
    1/10
    Pure evil
    The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.
  • sschwart28 June 1999
    Love, action, drama and a half pint of ale
    This engaging British series has been a favorite of mine since I was a girl. The families of this fictitious End London borough become familiar faces and names as the show follows generations of the characters thorough their lives. "EE" is more than a working-class soap opera---it's a genuine episodic drama, which is painfully rare here in the US. The storylines arc over months and years instead of days and weeks like American dramas are scheduled. Unlike many American "soap opera-type" series, the majority of episodes are penned by male scriptwriters. The action can be slow-building, but it is engaging. It takes a few viewings to understand who's who and what's what, but with all the websites devoted to this show, the details and characters can be sorted soon enough. Thanks to the advent of cable TV and the BBC America satellite channel, Americans can watch this cozy drama with only a slight lag behind their British counterparts. Grab your favorite ale and some fish and chips and try this show out.
  • Gubby-Allen2 September 2002
    1/10
    It's all gone crap.
    Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.

    The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.

    The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.

    1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"

    That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"

    The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.

    The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.

    What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.

    How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'

    Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.
  • Barry4 July 2007
    1/10
    Absolutely awful - one of the worst things on TV
    I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'

    Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore
  • michael_mulligan3 April 2017
    1/10
    Where do I start
    A fictionalised account of London life that may have existed 30 or 40 years ago. Walford in 2017 is largely white in population, like a home counties town not an inner London district. People work locally on low wage jobs whilst living in rented properties that would require top dollar rents. And if you're gay whoopydo you'll find yourself hooked up to what is the only gay in the village. An unrealistic portrayal of London life that's addictive for some
  • Sarah-603 August 2002
    Great British Institution
    I've dabbled in Corrie and Brookie, even Hollyoaks and Neighbours, but nothing beats the real thing!

    A strong core of familiar characters, and a host of new or recurring faces mean you can go weeks without catching an episode, then pick up where you left off.

    The acting is consistently of an astonishingly high standard, although obviously there is the odd false note. But often you can see young actors improve before your own eyes over the months. In particular, the occasional 'two-handers' are stunning.

    And there are wonderful moments of humour, especially from the likes of dear old Dot (the ultra wonderful June Brown)

    I just want to respond to a point raised by a Scottish writer on this board regarding portraying real life. IT'S A SOAP OPERA!!! Everything is condensed, heightened, exaggerated. But real issues are addressed.

    And as for suggesting that the number of characters from ethnic minority groups is unrealistic (many would argue the opposite) particularly because of the presence of the BNP in the real East End - surely that is backwards logic?

    But anyway - a great show, that I've grown up on, and life wouldn't be the same without it!
  • Peet McKimmie19 August 2007
    3/10
    Allegedly, it's got better over the years.
    I spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.

    Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.

    The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish "quarters", and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a "Cockney" accent was never heard.

    That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.

    Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-)
  • benbrae7611 September 2006
    2/10
    Brainwashed with soapy pap
    Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!

    We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

    The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.
  • atinder4 August 2009
    This show has it up and downs a lot
    I Have always watched Eastender even when people say is really bad, I stick with, I Really like some of the story lines I Really like back 2000, it has great storyline such, Zoe and Kat, Lmo and Trevor, after that show did go down really fast, it last few year it as picked up again, it two year on Xmas day this show 15m people watched it and that has the last Eastender or any other never got that many viewers ago and was one of the biggest successes in British soap television. In 2008/9, Danielle came into show looking for her mum but what didn't know that her mum who is Ronnie Mitchell was told by her dad that she died when she baby. April 1st 2009 it came out in one of most saddest scenes ever made. Ronnie was outstanding in that scenes, it didn't feel like soap, it felt like watching a movie was about 11.5 million viewers saw this happen at the moment highest rated soap of the year EastEnders have tackled a story of child grooming involving the characters Tony King and Whitney Dean as well involving character Lauren Branning at moment show is show talking about Bipolar disorder girl who seem to have from her mum, it great storyline and great acting to.

    Also In June 2009, Syed begins an affair with gay character Christian Clarke, played by John Partridge, a storyline that will see Syed "torn between his feelings and his faith, The storyline is said to be controversial, as homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam.

    What clad Easterner take risk of telling story then any other soaps in the UK.

    Sometimes they do have some very dull boring and silly story lines which i don't like sometimes.

    My family love Eastender,Not just my family my whole family loves Eastenders Every Xmas we always look forward to Eastenders.
  • pete-74119 November 2006
    1/10
    The most depressing dingiest thing on TV
    If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.

    It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.

    Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.

    If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.

    There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.

    Even the characters are totally unbelievable!
  • walfordqueen5 November 2005
    A very good soap
    EastEnders was excellent and easily the number 1 soap in the UK from 1985-2002.

    However 2003-2004 were dark years for the show with pathetic plot lines and lots of backstage problems. (Although even during these couple of dark years the show remained the no.2 soap in the UK)

    Things have picked up dramatically however and EastEnders is beginning to provide us with first class drama again that made it so well loved in the first place. It's no surprise the ratings are good again with the show sometimes topping Coronation Street.

    Still consistently the second most watched television show the British has today EastEnders is really proving that it deserves to be where it is and it also deserves to beat Coronation Street on the occasions it does.

    Whilst other soaps like Corrie and Emmerdale are good (if you like sheep and cows and are over 50), EastEnders is in a different league. It's not just a soap it's a drama and that's why it works so well combining the two different facets. No other soap can be like EastEnders because they just don't have the talent.

    A first class soap that has entertained from it's inception in 1985 despite it's recent problems. I'm sure EastEnders will go from strength to strength and continue it's quest to get back on top which is where it deserves to be.

    Kate Harwood and John Yorke I thank you personally for turning my favourite television show around.

    EastEnders is as much of an institution and national treasure as Coronation Street if not more.
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.