Not a great tasting lager, but it is drinkable if there is nothing better to drink

Tried on handpump in 05, tasted a bit like bitter water, also caused my head to feel quite funny.

Pours a fake orange colour with a decent enough white head. Taste is metallic, bitter, not particulary good. Pretty poor for a lager.

[on tap at Chronicles, Reading] A bit of history this - Fosters was the first beer I ever bought in a pub, at the tender age of 15. I drank this for about a year, before swiftly moving through cider and onto bitter and real ale. Now, 18 years later I was forced into trying it again through being in a pub with no other beers that I hadn’t already rated. It pours a pale yet dirty gold, with a moderate lasting head. The smell is vaguely stale, even though from the taste it clearly wasn’t. Tastes of corn and cardboard, with slight hints of citrus, malt and some wheat dust. But these really are hints - the overall impression is of fizzy water. It is one of the sweeter lagers - which explains how I was able to get into it easily as a teenager. And as a definite plus, there’s none of the metal in the aftertaste which characterises so many keg beers. Overall, it’s very bland, but easy to drink, and there’s nothing actually unpleasant about it to make you ditch it - but then there’s nothing to make you buy another pint either! There are far worse pale lagers out there...

Generic rubbish served to ignorant Brits , I went to Australia after hearing all the urban legends about how Oz fosters is bad, no it isnt its genuinly strong and tasty , this on the other hand reminds me of the heineken cold filtered we used to get in england , why do they give us this rubbish and why is it so popular??, on a summers days its palatable , but as a lager the only thing about it thats rateable is the colour, poor lager, very average.