Melania movie reviews savage Amazon’s pricey documentary as theaters sit empty

The first wave of Melania movie reviews landed Friday, Jan. 30, 2026, with a clear through line: critics see a lavishly produced, tightly controlled portrait that offers little new insight into the former first lady—while the film’s extraordinary spending and soft early ticket sales have become as newsworthy as the footage itself. The documentary, titled Melania, is directed by Brett Ratner and backed by Amazon MGM Studios, with Melania Trump credited as a producer.

The project opened theatrically in multiple markets after a Washington premiere at the Kennedy Center on Thursday night, and it arrives already engulfed in debate over whether it’s a prestige nonfiction release, a political “image project,” or something closer to a branded showcase.

Melania movie reviews turn brutal

Early critical reaction has been unusually harsh for a mainstream documentary launch. Several prominent reviews describe the film as aesthetically polished but substantively hollow—more preening than probing, more mood-board than narrative.

A recurring critique is that the documentary feels “sealed,” with interviews and sequences that appear designed to flatter rather than challenge. Reviewers have also pointed to the tone: solemn voiceover, glossy staging, and carefully framed moments that rarely veer into surprise, contradiction, or tension.

Key takeaways

• Many reviews frame the film as controlled PR rather than investigative documentary.

• The level of access on display does not translate into meaningful disclosure.

• The conversation is increasingly about money and distribution strategy, not artistry.

A $75 million bet draws scrutiny

The film’s reported budget footprint has supercharged scrutiny. Figures circulating widely put the package at roughly $75 million all-in, combining an estimated $40 million for licensing rights and around $35 million in marketing. That scale is far beyond the norms for documentaries, where even high-profile releases typically spend a fraction of that on promotion.

The project’s defenders argue the spend reflects premium production values and an unusually aggressive global push. Ratner has publicly rejected the idea that the budget signals anything improper, characterizing the release as a big, multi-format “creative experience” rather than a traditional journalistic documentary.

Regardless of intent, the number has shaped the frame through which viewers and critics approach the film: if it looks expensive, it is—and the market is now judging whether it can earn back cultural impact (and later streaming attention) commensurate with its price tag.

Empty seats become a story

Theatrical turnout has quickly become a headline. A WIRED scan of nearly 1,400 Friday showtimes found only two listings that appeared sold out—both earlier in the day—while many screenings showed large numbers of seats still available.

In the U.K., major chains acknowledged that pre-sales were “soft,” with anecdotal reports of near-empty auditoriums even in prominent venues. In the U.S., similar seat-map snapshots circulated widely online, adding to a feedback loop: low visible demand becomes part of the narrative, which can deter casual moviegoers who don’t want to attend a “dead” screening.

This doesn’t necessarily predict the film’s ultimate audience—documentaries often perform modestly in theaters and find their real viewership later at home. But the optics are tough for a release marketed at blockbuster volume.

South Africa pull adds geopolitical edge

Another thread amplifying the coverage: the film was pulled from theaters in South Africa just before release. The local distributor pointed to “recent developments” without detailing specifics publicly, and the move landed amid heightened political tensions between South Africa and President Donald Trump.

The cancellation became a proxy battle in the wider discourse around the film—less about what’s on screen than what the project represents internationally. It also underlined a key reality of global distribution in 2026: political context can collide with entertainment marketing faster than a studio can message its way out of it.

What comes next on Prime Video

The immediate commercial question is whether the film’s theatrical run is simply a high-profile launch pad for a larger streaming audience. Amazon MGM’s strategy appears built around visibility—premiere spectacle, aggressive ad spend, and headlines that keep the title in the feed.

If the film underwhelms in theaters, the focus will shift to:

• whether streaming viewership spikes when it hits Prime Video,

• whether controversy converts to curiosity,

• and whether the project’s “cost vs. impact” gap narrows through long-tail engagement.

For now, the early verdict is bifurcated: critics have largely panned the content, while the marketplace is still deciding whether the attention storm is enough to bring viewers in.

Sources consulted: The Guardian; Variety; The Hollywood Reporter; WIRED; Entertainment Weekly; The Verge.