What makes it different from others?

Lack of good storyline.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

I can understand why some people might not like this movie. It was fairly non-creative, the acting was average, and some of the scenes were like an after school special on fraternities. However...the one saving grace of this film is the bonus features on the DVD. If there is an award for funniest DVD commentary of all time, let this be the winner. The director, Justin Zachham, brought the actors Corey Pearson, Dylan Bruno, and Scott Viscomi into a recording studio to lay down the commentary. They apparently brought tons of beer, and the effect is downright magical. If only the director could have channeled these three actors off the cuff, nonchalant humor into the movie, it would have been a blazing success. Over the course of the movie, they knock each other out with boxing gloves, break a hand, knock everything over, completely ignore the movie, tell hilarious stories about the production of the movie, and fart on each other. I urge you, buy the DVD for this alone, you will not be disappointed.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.--Dean Wormer, "Animal House".Movies like "Going Greek" show how really, really difficult it is to make another film as good and inspired as "Animal House".First, you need to have a good script. This doesn't.Then you need to have a funny cast. This doesn't.Then add in an inspired director who can find and enhance the comedy. Justin Zackhan ain't it.Maybe if the people watching this film are as trite, loud, drunk and stupid as the characters in it, they might find this film amusing, but I doubt it. I found "Going Greek" to be a sad, formulaic waste of time.

Had the more of the actors been under 29 and not over 30. It's fun if you're bored with nothing else to do, but Jake Taylor and Paige 1) Had no chemistry 2) She should've apologized to him...eehf. That and Jake Taylor was one of the nastiest actors I've ever laid eyes on. He didn't speak up, was not flamboyant enough to appear like he had a brain. He was very mechanical and not camera friendly at all- the whole thing of him caring about Gil wasn't pulled off because of his detachment. I loved the Gil and Sully characters- in fact, the movie had a lot of potentially good actors. I suppose if you're a 15 year old boy this movie kicks a lot of butt.

...having seen this movie, I must disagree with most of the other commentators. This film is quite bad in just about every basic aspect.For one, instead of having a strong story that drives our heroes Gil and Jake to strive for inclusion at the expense of their dignity, we have nothing more than a series of episodic gross-out gags and ruses, not to mention a slapped-on romance. The razor-thin plot consists of fraternity brothers inducting Gil in hopes that Jake would join the fraternity as well and, with his former football skills, beat a rival fraternity (of which we know nothing of, by the way) in a football game that exists only because there was a need for an uplifting and climactic ending.Second, the gags are gross in the extreme, yet they are neither funny (thanks to poor timing aided by the aforementioned episodic approach, despite well-done delivery) nor disgusting (Yes, every conceivable example of displaying people's by-products is in this movie.). Some of the humor is good only when taken out of the context of the film, but for the most part it is just plain sad, because it leaves little for the audience to fill in with their imagination.Third, the bad-enough one-dimensional stereotypes that unfortunately are the characters are in addition plagued with an air of arrogance and self-importance. Moreover, some of the characters are not completely fleshed out and, because of it, they miss moments that could've been ripe with humor. For example, Charlie Talbert gives a memorable and hilarious comedic performance as Dooly, but even that can't save his poorly written on-screen persona. (Early on he says he "likes pussy", but near the end it shows that he is clearly a homosexual. The actual problem is that there is no comedic arc to discern whether that was the case all along, he developed a taste for it, or if he was bi.) Try as I might, these problems couldn't be ignored and ultimately soured the film for me.I gave the film a 3: The lowest rating you can go + Basic principles of film-making are followed + Charlie Talbert.