User reviews

Jack in the Box: Awakening (2022) is a movie I recently watching on Tubi. The storyline follows a woman on her deathbed who makes a wish to the wrong old antique box. The box agrees to grant her wish if she releases whats inside...

This movie is directed by Lawrence Fowler (Jack in the Box) and stars Matt McClure (Penny Dreadful), James Swanton (Host), Mollie Hindle (The Highwayman), Nicola Wright (Love Possibly) and Michaela Longden (Book of Monsters).

This was better than the first film. Once again the costume, makeup and sound effects were excellent and created a great "monster;" unfortunately, the kill scenes were still a notch down from what I hoped. The kill scenes show a knife or scissors, a gesture and then not what happens to the victims. The storyline isn't compelling enough to care about the characters and what happens to them and the ending is straightforward.

Overall this is a step in the right direction from the first film but still is a below average addition to the horror genre. I would score this a 4/10 and recommend skipping it.

I saw the first Jack in the box, and it holds two things I'm scared of. Clowns and a Jack in the box. Hated those things since childhood. Just the music the box makes gives me the creeps. While this movie is creepy...it just wasn't scary. The filming location for this movie was excellent and the manor and the grounds were beautiful. I thought the acting was good as well, but the plot was just like the last movie, kill 6 people to obtain a wish. Two movies like this should be the limit. I don't think this same plot will work a third tine. It's hard to believe they even gave it the green light for a second movie. Peace.

Is a 2022 horror film. The film is the 2nd installment of The Jack in the Box movie. Section. Although it is a little better than the first film, it does not even reach mediocre. The plot of the film is briefly as follows: there is a cursed clown in a box. Whatever you want from this box happens after 6 victims. A ridiculous character and subject. It's also very boring.

There is no nudity and sexuality in the film.

Its nothing more than utter crap. Its bad acting, bad plot and just utter boredom to watch. They try some jumpscare, but at most you get annoyed. After 20 min. Of watching this crap, i began playing Fishdom on my phone. Avoid.

Can't believe people have wasted their career in producing this film it is very poorly written, performed by amateurs one which made for an atrocious evening that I wish I hadn't wasted.

Ugh, 93 mins of my life that I will never get back! One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Nothing suspenseful and the actors, writers, producers should be ashamed. Have nothing good to say about it...except it is over.

Not a good movie to watch for especially the director and writer have nothing to tell in this movie the movie is totally wasted the actors are all totally wasted.

The first film was a well-shot, but fairly run-of-the-mill direct-to-video horror. The production value was good for the budgetary constraints, but overall, the story was generic and felt a little padded.

'The Jack in the Box: Awakening' is certainly an improvement. We begin with what seems like a basic horror film setup, but the film surprised me by showing a surprisingly large amount of the story through (one of) the villain's perspective. It's very clever from an emotional standpoint and the acting was actually really good from everyone, but Matt McClure as Edgar is definitely the standout.

So the story, is actually quite well-done, and while there is a somewhat overlong exposition scene, it's more about the emotional journey than it is all the backstory of the demon. There are some very effective sequences of tension building too, often involving lights, which sounds very rudimentary on paper, but, trust me, it's used to good effect here.

I only wish they hadn't shied away on many of the kills though: a disappointing amount of them happen off-screen, which is okay for a few times and I know suspense is more effective than gore, but it is a slasher and I would have like to have seen a little more pay-off with the deaths.

I would recommend this for low-budget horror fans. Aside from being just a little overlong, it's a fairly uniquely-told story with good production value (the locations are gorgeous), well-done cinematography and some decent suspense and scares. Lawrence Fowler has clearly grown as a writer and director and you won't be lost if you skip the original film. I wish the creators the best luck in their future endeavours.

I am giving this a ten mainly because I found no issues. I mean it was not ground breaking but if that is what you are looking for in every horror movie then your in the wrong genre. Did I jump? Yes. Do I want an origin story? Yes. Did I want to fast forward due to annoyance? No. The other reason I give it a ten is because the reviews I saw for less than 5 were obviously not genre fans and this is a genre film that is light enough to watch at a sleepover in middle school but scary enough to ensure at least one girl at the sleepover never does a sleepover again.

In this british jack the box horror flick, written and directed by mr fowler that has fumbled a whole lot on the plot speed, the filmographic brightness gives vibes of 1980's bbc studio tv theater, but thats merely it on the downside.

Its quite good acted, small cast,good screaming, enerving score and sound effects and few sets, light and shadow work are impeccable, and the jack in the box is quite enerving and well acted and styled non-vfx/cgi, the horror segments makes you feel quite uncomfortable and there are a pretty lot of them throughout the screening, so if your nerves are bleeched and your heart faintful, then a small warning to you.

So if you have a tendency towards jacks in a box stories with an alternative clutch on the straw then this might be IT. Of course you couldve written a better screenplay than this you might think, but the grumpy old man , who has shown quite some grit towards british low budget horrorfilmaking may give a recommend to this one.

Poor poor poor and poor in every way. The script is boring, obviously written by an amateur. The acting is very bad, overacting in a very bad way. The actors are the worst, can't be any worse.

Just kidding. Not the greatest film of all time. Close to the worst film of all time, but not even bad enough for that. It's a tad better than the worst film of all time, so it gets a two star rating. The original was horrendous (but not in a good way), and the sequel is sleep-inducing ( i took a ten minute nap in the middle of the film and missed nothing from the plot). I got free passes for this and several other turkeys. I got free popcorn and coke as well. It was not worth the loss of my time. I took a nice nap, but still had to look at the meaningless action? On the screen. I wanted to leave early, but it was a very big serving of popcorn.

This film is truly awful... So slow, there's no horror jump scars or anything exciting.

In fact it's so bad I'm still 'watching' it while writing this..

This movie is weird. It's kinda shot Good, in terms of lower budget film making, but the main guy character is terrible at acting. Plus.. the concept of someone living in a jack in the box is ridiculous. I've never even seen the "first" one, but I don't want to now. It's also very sloooow moving. Living in a manor with no internet, phone, or house phone...plus a 9pm curfew, weirdo jack in the box clown killer thing, a dying bedridden woman, you see where this is going. The answer is nowhere. It's a shame because with better acting, a not so predictable storyline & faster movement would have made this halfway watchable.

I really liked the movie especially i didn't see the first movie but this one took my attention from the beginning to the end, i liked the Edgar acting he was the best in the movie.

I think it is definitely a decent demon based film. About as good as the original. Anyone who says it is crappy doesn't truly know horror films in my opinion.

I REALLY enjoyed the movie as far as the thriller aspect and the fact that I had to turn away from the screen through a sacrifice scene, was impressive since I don't scare easy! I believe those of you rating would have to either personally relate to the characters and the plot or have a vivid imagination to visualize the value of the movie even though critics would call it "low budget". The comments, in my opinion or extremely harsh and maybe they can rely on support from those of you who didn't appreciate the effort put into making a movie that kept my attention...which is hard to do.

This movie is worse that the first of which i reviewed a day ago. That being said it's still not a one out of ten.

The story is pretty poor, but for a low-budget horror movie it wasn't abysmal (i've seen worse).

The cast where about as good as the first movie. Nothing special and to be fair nothing even good. It was just mediocre acting. I found myself liking it more in the other movie but i don't believe the first had better acting overall, i just preferred it personally.

Just like the first this movie is not at all horror. There is blood (kinda) and some death but nothing shocking and definitely nothing horrifying. As i believed the first time around, don't watch this movie if you're genuinely looking for a scare or something spooky.

Story - 2.5/10

Cast - 4.5

Horror - 1/10

Overall a poor movie but nothing terrible. Still better than The House on Pine Street.

2/10, don't recommend.

It's really not scary at all, and it's unintentionally funny in many parts. But I'll give it 2 stars because it's a great movie to watch with friends to have a laugh, I would rank it to soap-opera level.