I would also like to urge whoever it was who suggested that the Orthodox view is somehow premillennialist to check out the canons from the Second Ecumenical Council. Premillennialism certainly was posited by many, but was rejected as heresy by the Council of Constantinople in 381. This, and multiple talks I've heard given by prominent Orthodox scholars and theologians, leads me to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church rejects, and has always rejected, any form of premillennialism. I think you're correct that most Orthodox are not terribly interested in these issues, as our focus is much more sacramental and spiritual, but there is a definite Orthodox position.
Actually the only thing rejected was the idea of a thousand year limit to Christ's reign, which is wny in the Creed it says "of His kingdom there shall be no end." The protestant eschatologists talk of a "thousand year reign of Christ," but Revelation does not say this. It says that the first thousand years of that eternal reign, the devil is bound and unable to tempt the nations. since he tempts believers and unbelievers alike, it follows that the binding done by Christ during the time Christ was dead and visited all the unseen realms, was more of a serious crippling. After the thousand years the devil is allowed to tempt mankind one more time, a revolt occurs which is put down and the devil is thrown into the lake of fire where the antichrist and the false prophet already are by then.
The amillennial idea is that while Christ will come back physically, He will simply destroy the earth and judge all who are resurrected for this, a future on earth for the blessed is not emphasized. Revelation and Daniel and hints in other Prophets point to a blessed and immortal and indestructible state on earth. (Paul speaking of a "spiritual body" is speaking of a supernatural body, since it will be like Jesus' Body after the Resurrection, which was very physical with flesh and bones yet also supernatural.
And, this amillennialism holds that the thousand years is symbolic and Christ rules on earth through the Church. While of course we have a foretaste of His rule, this is not all there is to it.
Paul speaks of us awaiting the redemption of our bodies, the resurrection of the dead. So we
have part of the kingdom of Heaven now, and fullness of it later.
Origenists started the idea that a physical resurrection was too material and gross for their tastes, and Montanism which exploited Revelation got that Book a bad reputation so that some even doubted it was legitimate.
dispensationalism posits extreme demarcations between eras and is very mechanistic, and is the basis for the pre trib rapture nonsense.
some had the idea that after a thousand years Christ would give the rule over to The Father, and no longer reign. But The Father has been the monarch and source of the Son and The Holy Spirit therefore king all along. Taking a direct role on earth would not mean that Christ would not continue to be king also even if only a secondary king so to speak.
Origenism infected some Patristic writers, so that St. Gregory of Nyssa believed the apokatastasis or restoration of all things or universal salvation of all and damnation of none. St. John Chrysostom I think is the transit point for the idea that the coats or tunics of skin that God gave Adam and Eve were the densely physical bodies we have now, and that originally they were etheric. Such ideas were condemned in the I think 15 anathemas against Origen, and though Adam and Eve aren't mentioned the idea that heavenly bodies only became physical as we see them now when they stopped contemplating God was condemned and if it doesn't fly with them it doesn't fly with us. St. Epiphanius in the Panarion denounced this idea about adam and Eve as "nonsense," so it was no part of normal ORthodox thought in his time. And he blamed it on Origen.