After first day of screenings, “Melania Movie” draws scathing reviews and empty-seat headlines

The first full day of theatrical screenings for Melania on Friday, Jan. 30, 2026 (ET) produced a blunt early verdict: critics largely dismissed the documentary as glossy but unrevealing, while much of the public conversation focused on visibly light attendance rather than what’s on screen. The film—directed by Brett Ratner and backed by Amazon MGM Studios—opened in a wide release footprint for a documentary, following a high-profile Washington premiere the night before.

Within hours, the movie’s reception became a two-track story: harsh critical takedowns on one side, and a steady drip of seat-map screenshots and anecdotes on the other. Together they created the opening-day narrative that the documentary is struggling to translate saturation marketing into genuine “event” demand.

Critics call it polished, but hollow

Opening-day reviews skewed overwhelmingly negative, with many writers arguing that the documentary looks expensive yet offers little new insight into Melania Trump’s public or private life. A common critique is that the film feels tightly controlled—more like a curated image project than a probing nonfiction portrait—favoring mood, aesthetic staging, and selective access over friction or discovery.

Several reviews also framed the documentary’s tone as unusually solemn for its level of substance, describing long stretches that feel closer to aspirational branding than storytelling. Even among critics who acknowledged technical professionalism, the consistent refrain was that the movie rarely surprises: it builds a protective frame around its subject rather than testing it.

Empty theaters become the story

If the reviews were harsh, the attendance narrative was harsher. A showtime-by-showtime analysis of roughly 1,400 Friday screenings found only two listings that appeared sold out—and both were earlier in the day—while many venues showed large blocks of unsold seats. By midday, the seat-map imagery had become a feedback loop: screenshots spread rapidly, shaping perceptions of the movie as a “soft opening” regardless of what any one theater was seeing.

In the United Kingdom, the pattern was similarly visible. Reports from multiple cinemas described only a handful of tickets sold for various showtimes, reinforcing the idea that curiosity was loud online but quieter at the box office.

This kind of opening is not automatically fatal for a documentary, which often finds its bigger audience later on streaming. But the mismatch between the film’s massive promotional footprint and the apparent thin theatrical turnout has made the economics of the release a central part of the conversation.

Social media reactions skew mocking and partisan

Online reaction on opening day leaned heavily into ridicule—especially on film-first platforms and political feeds where the documentary is treated as cultural ammunition rather than a stand-alone movie. Many posts praised the spectacle of a high-budget documentary “flopping” more than they engaged with specific scenes.

At the same time, the social response is hard to read cleanly because not every loud post reflects a ticket-buyer. Some users openly framed their reviews as political statements, while others appeared to be reacting to headlines about the film rather than the film itself.

Most common opening-day reactions

• “Looks like a luxury ad”: praise for the sheen, criticism of the substance

• “PR, not documentary”: skepticism about independence and intent

• “Nobody’s in the theaters”: attendance becomes the main plot line

International rollout adds new complications

The first-day narrative was also shaped by overseas developments. The documentary’s planned theatrical release in South Africa was pulled ahead of the opening, with the local distributor citing “recent developments” without publicly detailing specifics. The decision fueled additional chatter that the film’s rollout is being influenced by political context in certain markets, not just entertainment demand.

Internationally, the contrast has been stark: reports of sparse showings in some regions versus pockets of interest tied to Melania Trump’s personal background. Even that contrast, however, has strengthened the broader theme of inconsistency—this is not behaving like a conventional wide-release title, and it is not building uniform momentum from city to city.

What comes next for the film

The near-term question is whether opening-day theater optics matter to the strategy. The project’s scale suggests the theatrical run may function as a visibility engine—generating headlines, clips, and debate—before a larger audience encounters it at home. If so, the film’s true performance metric shifts from ticket sales to streaming engagement.

Even then, opening-day reactions matter because they shape the context in which viewers press play later. Harsh reviews and “empty seat” narratives can deter casual audiences who might otherwise watch out of curiosity. The upside is that controversy can also boost visibility: a widely mocked release often becomes a “so bad you have to see it” curiosity, especially once it’s one click away.

For now, the first-day takeaway is clear. The documentary entered theaters with uncommon marketing heft and left opening day with a headline dominated by scathing critiques, weak turnout optics, and a broader debate over what, exactly, Amazon MGM hoped to buy with such a high-profile release.

Sources consulted: WIRED; The Guardian; Variety; The Independent; The Hollywood Reporter; Rotten Tomatoes