There are films that reveal everything or makes you wait, and then there are films like LOCKBOX—stories that constantly reinvent themselves, refusing to be confined to a single genre. What begins as a mystery soon transforms into something much bigger, weaving together psychological drama, crime, horror, and suspense in ways that continually surprise the audience. It’s a film that keeps you questioning not only its characters but also where the story itself is heading next.

During our conversation, director Daniel Stamm, alongside stars Katharine Isabelle and Lou Taylor Pucci, opened up about embracing uncertainty throughout the creative process, crafting emotionally layered performances, filming an ambitious production in only eighteen days, and why, despite today’s streaming culture, nothing can truly replace the experience of watching a movie with a room full of strangers.

What followed wasn’t simply another promotional interview—it became an honest discussion about filmmaking, collaboration, vulnerability, and the magic that can happen when talented people trust one another and allow a story to evolve naturally.

Movie Moves Me: Thank you so much for joining the call, and congratulations on Lockbox. I saw it last night and it kept me awake, so thank you for that! Mr. Stamm, how did you first discover this script, and what drew you to it enough to bring it to life on screen?

Daniel Stamm: Usually when scripts are sent from my agent, there’s a little cover letter attached. Most of the time it says something like, “Think of The Exorcist on a boat.” Then you read it, and it really is just The Exorcist on a boat, and you feel like you’ve seen it a million times. Ninety percent of what you read feels like a copy of a copy.

With this one, there was no pitch attached. It simply read: “I won’t tell you anything. You just have to read this.” Which is honestly the best cover letter ever. I went in completely blind and went through the exact phases I hope the audience experiences—trying to figure out what kind of beast this movie is and what genre you’re even in.

It was an incredible roller coaster. Every time you think, “Okay, I know what this movie is now—the next 90 pages will be these two people stuck in the backwoods,” it suddenly shifts into the big city and becomes a courtroom drama or a crime thriller. Just as you adapt to that, it moves on to the next massive idea. It’s so rich with scenarios. Iconic characters are suddenly killed off halfway through, brand new characters are introduced, and yet it maintains immense depth without ever feeling shallow or like it’s just ticking boxes.

Even the third-act genre elements—which are usually spread out over 90 pages—are packed into a 10-page sequence where you can really go crazy. The rhythm was so unusual and the characters were so memorable that I was immediately hooked.

Movie Moves Me: The characters were exceptionally memorable. My next question is for Katharine regarding Vahna Minter. She is someone who constantly keeps the audience guessing about her true identity and motives. As an actor, your performance completely grabbed me and pulled me straight into that crazy world. What was the most interesting part of inhabiting such a charismatic and complex character?

Katharine Isabelle: She really is charismatic, but she’s also mysterious, adorable, quirky, and dangerous all at once. To me, the demon inhabiting her acts almost like a metaphor for human nature—having endured the absolute worst of humanity, which destroyed her being. Yet, you still see brief glimpses of who she could have been had those traumas and abuses never been inflicted on her.

She’s a whirlwind of a character, and I fell in love with her immediately. I love playing someone who isn’t one-dimensional—someone who might be slightly unlikable at first, but who you end up falling for by the end of your time together. On top of that, her iconic visual look, created by our amazing crew, made stepping into her shoes so much easier than if she had just looked normal.

Daniel Stamm: She also possesses one major weapon that we don’t talk about enough: humor. Nothing else in the movie is allowed to be funny, but Vahna comes in and just goes for it. That makes it impossible not to love her. How can someone be so dangerous when they’re also so kooky and funny?

Movie Moves Me: That’s very true. Speaking of someone who isn’t inherently kooky or funny—Winthrop Benson—my next question is for Mr. Pucci. Winthrop appears to be a dislikable character on the surface, yet through your performance, you uncover a deeply humane side that allows the audience to empathize with him. What was it like as an actor to dive deep into his psychological trauma while balancing the need to hide his pain and reveal it simultaneously?

Lou Taylor Pucci: That was the ultimate challenge of making this movie—doing both at the exact same time. I needed to act as an innocent character for one take, and then immediately follow it with a take where he was scarier, more aggressive, and intimidating.

I was switching gears on every single take throughout the entire shoot to give Daniel the options he would need in the editing room later. Sometimes in a specific scene, you need a character to seem a bit more frightening, but you might not realize that until you’re cutting the film together. I essentially had to play two different people: the innocent boy to whom all this trauma happened, and the person who allowed years of abuse and neglect to turn him into a bit of a monster.

Movie Moves Me: Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Stamm. What was the most challenging part of directing this film? It has so many narrative angles you could have explored. I want readers and podcast listeners to understand that directing isn’t easy—behind those beautiful faces on screen, there’s a director trying to orchestrate everything, even though the public perception often simplifies that role.

Daniel Stamm: That’s a fantastic question. When I was in film school, that Hitchcockian myth was very much the aura everyone assumed a director had—the idea that you’ve shot the entire movie in your mind beforehand and you just bring in beautiful faces to walk through your vision. I never felt like I had that, and it used to terrify me.

Then I took an acting workshop with Judith Weston, who pioneered the action-verb technique for directing actors. She said something that changed everything for me: “The most powerful words a director can say to an actor are, ‘I don’t know.'”

Admitting that you haven’t figured everything out in your head invites your actors and department heads to be genuine creative collaborators. It lifted a massive weight off my shoulders. You go in with a starting angle, but you maintain the mental flexibility to see what everyone else brings to the table. If you have faith in that process, you make something far stronger than whatever existed in your head alone.

The trick is that while communicating your “not knowing” works wonders with actors, studio executives and financiers holding the money are terrified of those words! So you have to sell them on a complete, fixed vision, get onto set, drop the director persona with your team, and figure it out together.

On a practical level, the hardest part wasn’t the script or the characters—it was the schedule. When our assistant director and producers budgeted the script, they called it a 36-day shoot. The studio came back and asked, “Can you do it in 18?” So we made a 36-day movie in 18 days.

Working at that pace is the ultimate challenge. Having someone like Katharine come in with a fully formed character—which I can take very little credit for—was an absolute blessing because we didn’t have time to workshop scenes. You could probably count the sentences Katharine and I exchanged on set on two hands because the clock was ticking. But everyone was so locked in and committed that magic happened naturally.

Movie Moves Me: My last question is for all of you. In an era where everyone is glued to their phones or tablets, watching movies on the go rather than going to theaters, why is the big-screen experience still so vital for cinema and performance-driven films to survive?

Daniel Stamm: Obviously every filmmaker will tell you their movie is made for the big screen, but the irony is that we don’t monitor or edit on a big screen. The first time I ever see the movie on a massive theater screen is when it’s completely finished, and I’m always in awe of that scale.

Beyond screen size, the most important factor is the total removal of distraction. In a theater, you are forced to experience a story in one continuous sitting, exactly as intended. You aren’t getting phone calls or catering to the daily impulse jumps we deal with constantly. You rarely get to experience a story in one complete piece anymore, and losing that focus is perhaps more damaging than screen size.

There’s also the collective energy of watching a film with a room full of strangers. For a movie like Lockbox, with all its twists and wild turns, gasping or laughing along with an audience creates an electric atmosphere you simply can’t replicate at home while half-paying attention and scrolling social media.

The theater remains a sacred space enveloped in darkness. I’m not religious, but a crowded theater is the closest thing I have to a shared communal experience. Everyone goes through an intense journey together and walks out saying, “Whoa.”

There is immense goodwill in people fighting through traffic and taking time out of their busy lives to give us two hours of their day. As a filmmaker, I feel a deep responsibility to deliver something that makes them feel those two hours were entirely worth their while.