Mark Wahlberg Looking to Hatch a Sequel to Four Brothers
by Ethan Anderton
January 14, 2010
That's right, kids, apparently the film industry has become so obsessed with sequels that Paramount and Mark Wahlberg (via THR) have found it necessary to attempt a follow-up to a film that wasn't all that successful to begin with, and honestly doesn't even need a sequel. The film in question is the 2005 thriller Four Brothers which followed, obviously, four brothers (Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garret Hedlund) who come together to avenge their mother's death in what at first appears to be a random robbery. Plot details for the sequel are still being kept under wraps but it will be called Five Brothers.
Wahlberg apparently came up with the idea with original writers David Elliot and Paul Lovett, but no word if any other cast members other than Wahlberg will return or if director John Singleton will be back either. However, (spoiler!) Hedlund's character died in the first film, and Tyrese and Andre 3000 don't exactly have thriving film careers to keep them busy, so I'm sure they could use another paycheck with royalties to follow. All I know is Wahlberg better start making some better decisions or it'll be back to the Funky Bunch. He gives a decent performance in The Lovely Bones, but he can't afford another flick like The Happening.
I actually enjoyed Four Brothers, but I don't see a sequel in it.
Robbie on Jan 14, 2010
DoomCanoe on Jan 14, 2010
Four Brothers was good. No sequel needed.
Solo Dolo Polo on Jan 14, 2010
Four Brothers 2: Fo Mo Brothas.
In-Rainbows on Jan 14, 2010
I'm sure there were too many minorities in the Film and maybe that's why you didn't find the movie that great. The movie was good and there's essentially no need for a sequel that's all there is to it.
Dude on Jan 14, 2010
all the good lines came from victor sweet though and hes dead " Get down on the floor and share a meal with your man!" " Dam*t, i like the way you do binnness"
J Franzen on Jan 14, 2010
Yeah, that Andre is making no money and needs to do another crummy movie.
tra la la la la di da on Jan 14, 2010
A sequel? I didn't even see the need for the first one.
Hattori Hanzo on Jan 14, 2010
Victor Sweet was one of the best screen villains for years. Too bad he cant come back!
masteryoda007 on Jan 14, 2010
four brothers sucked. Mark Whalberg gave a shitty performance in it, as well as Lovely Bones. That scene where he confronts tucci was terrible If the happening was labeled as a comedy, i think it could have been successful
Verbal Kent on Jan 14, 2010
The first one was decent but nothing special. This one will probably be similar
medley on Jan 14, 2010
Blue Silver on Jan 14, 2010
why? this movie sucked
harrison on Jan 14, 2010
Bitch u suck...dic bitch
Bang_bang on Aug 29, 2012
Voice of Reason on Jan 14, 2010
Why would you say it wasn't that successful in the first place? 75 million domestic and almost 100 million worldwide on a budget of like 40 million. The Transporter and Crank movies weren't nearly that successful and they got sequels. Not to mention Halloween, which again wasn't nearly as successful. As for whether or not a sequel is relevant, that all depends on whether or not the story they come up with is any good. I can think of lots of movies that didn't SEEM like they needed a sequel, but the follow up turned out better than expected.
Colca on Jan 14, 2010
Four Brothers was a remake/update of an old John Wayne film: The Sons of Katie Elder. Four Brothers was okay, but not that great. The original had John Wayne and Dean Martin and still managed to only be average. Now they want a sequel, what's the point? They should just update some other and better old western and see how that goes at the box office.
RKB on Jan 14, 2010
I think Walhberg is doing well enough with his paychecks from Entourage. He may never even have to work again, now that Entourage is syndicated
Facts on Jan 14, 2010
talk about a movie that has no need for a sequel.
Xerxex on Jan 14, 2010
Why not Three brothers? one died.
Presley on Jan 14, 2010
"Four Brothers 2: Fo Mo Brothas." That made me laugh. xD The movie sucked, no need for a sequel.
Sabes on Jan 14, 2010
This trend of unnecessary 'straight to DVD' sequels to moderately enjoyable little indie cult hits is beginning to make me sick. Four Brothers 2 Boondock Saints 2 What next? The Departed 2?
twittwit on Jan 14, 2010
Good movie, but no need for a sequel. WTF, I thought 2007 was the year for sequels anyway.
biggvel1 on Jan 14, 2010
#4 hahaha Five Brothers "Because the great thing about an dead orphan brother, you can just adopt another one." In theaters everywhere...
Guy on Jan 15, 2010
No four brothers don't need a sequel but it would be nice I love the four brothers and have watched it over and over PLEASE do anther on
Carolyn Jackson on Sep 20, 2010
Honestly, I would be jumping out of my chair from reading this news.... BUT, they killed off Jack Mercer. How can they even begin to make a sequel when they killed off the best character in the whole movie? And seriously, Five Brothers? Wtf?? How is that going to work when they killed Jack, and there were only four to begin with? Are they going to kidnap a guy and force him to be a part of the family, and then resurrect Jack from the dead? A sequel is pointless. I'd rather continue re-watching the original movie.
Callie Vasey on Nov 27, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.