I was explaining the book they use for source material, the subtitle of which is "The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI". It's not a narrative like the movie. It's not about who the Osage victims are. It's about the formation of the FBI and focuses on something just they did. Is that a good lens for talking about the FBI either?

Is that where you'd start? Honestly I think Paul Schrader was right and the movie should follow the sheriff. Or maybe Plemons. That's the kind of story they're telling. Otherwise you would actually follow Mollie Burkhart's journey to DC. Instead it's mostly about the criminal apparatus and she's stuck in bed for a lot of it.

Zone of Interest takes evil much more seriously than Flower Moon or Oppeneheimer. It doesn't even have to enter the camps. It follows the monsters. The difference is you can't escape the camps. There is no shooting and crying like Oppeneheimer. There's no guise of entertainment like KTFM. It's the only one of the three that does its subject justice imo.

But again, I've agreed with movies and found them terrible before. I've disagreed with movies and found them incredible. That's just not how art works.

The ones I saw, from favorite to least favorite:

1. Oppenheimer
2. American Fiction
3. Zone of Interest
4. Barbie
5. Killers of the Flower Moon
6. Poor Things

OP list is same as mine.

The Zone of Interest was crazy.

Same with Poor Things.

what happened?

they had the dog from the movie in the audience as like a puppet and kept using it as a gag

Killers of the flower moon

At the bottom of a pit that sinks all the way into the earth's core: Barbie

Anatomy of a Fall was so bad. The Holdovers was okay at best.