Melania Trump's highly anticipated documentary has made its cinematic debut accompanied by an unprecedented multimillion-pound marketing campaign, only to be met with overwhelmingly negative reviews from professional critics across the board. The £40 million film, directed by Brett Ratner and backed by Amazon MGM Studios, chronicles the twenty days leading up to Donald Trump's second presidential inauguration, with an additional £35 million allocated for global promotion.
Critical Consensus: Propaganda and Superficiality
Despite its substantial theatrical release, unusual for a political documentary, the film has been brutally panned by reviewers. Early aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes have plummeted to single digits, while Metacritic has categorised the critical reception as demonstrating 'overwhelming dislike'. The project has swiftly become a lightning rod for controversy, with numerous publications accusing it of being little more than propaganda, marked by superficiality and what many describe as stunning dullness.
Scathing Reviews from Major Publications
The Guardian's critic, who noted having the cinema entirely to himself, awarded the film just one star. He labelled it 'Dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing'. Xan Brooks, in a particularly scathing assessment, described it as a rare documentary possessing 'not a single redeeming quality'. He likened the experience to viewing 'an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch, proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne.' Brooks mocked moments of superficial luxury, such as an aide commenting, 'White and gold – that's so you,' and concluded that 'two hours of Melania feels like pure, endless hell'.
The Atlantic criticised the film's 'emptiness and glacial pacing', noting that despite its nearly two-hour runtime, '[very] little is actually in it'. Critic Sophie Gilbert depicted Melania drifting between locations while the camera follows her 'like a lap dog', with the director seemingly unable to capture any meaningful action. While Melania states, 'every day I live with purpose and devotion,' the reviewer argues the footage largely consists of mundane activities like wardrobe fittings and ceremonial planning, creating an overall effect described as 'stultifying'.
Variety questioned the film's value, writing that it is 'many things - but it's not $75million worth of movie' and that much of it simply shows 'a woman walking into and out of rooms'. Daniel D'Addario suggested Melania appears detached, with 'little feeling behind the words' and a notable lack of introspection, adding that the film seems 'aggressively uninterested in exploring the terrain of its subject's mind'.
Further Condemnation from Entertainment Media
Vanity Fair dismissed the documentary as dull, propagandistic, and emotionally opaque, arguing it 'plays like a mockumentary' and functions as 'a work of propaganda'. Critic Joy Press said director Brett Ratner lacks the visual flair to elevate the material, instead offering 'endless shots of the gaudy, excessive Trump aesthetic' in scenes so monotonous that 'We might as well be watching gold paint dry.'
Empire Magazine delivered a blunt assessment, branding the film 'political propaganda at its most transparent - cynical, pointless, and very, very boring.' William Thomas's one-star review likened it to a scripted reality show - 'The Only Way Is White House' - with narration possessing 'the insight and wisdom of a school book report.'
The Daily Beast declared the documentary 'terrible' and, without its unintentional comic moments, potentially 'an abomination'. Critic Kevin Fallon noted Melania's expressionless delivery and reported sparse attendance at screenings, joking that their 'soul left my body' during the opening scene.
Business Insider opened its review bluntly: 'Melania, the new documentary about first lady Melania Trump, is not a good movie.' Peter Kafka described a film filled with glossy visuals but devoid of substance, calling it 'a dull, inert product, where zero interesting things happen,' and ultimately comparing it to 'a wedding video'.
BuzzFeed's Natasha Jokic offered a savage dismissal, saying she would 'rather relive that moment a hundred times over' of bugs swarming her kitchen than watch the film again. She derided the aesthetic as resembling 'a music video, or perhaps a screensaver,' with Melania's remarks likened to 'an absent father using ChatGPT to write a wedding speech.'
Audience Reaction and Cultural Divide
In stark contrast to the critical mauling, audience reactions have been dramatically different. Verified viewer scores on major platforms have soared to near-perfect levels, and the documentary has delivered one of the biggest non-fiction cinematic openings in the past decade. This stark divide between critics and the public has fuelled intense online debate, with accusations of review-bombing, political bias, and culture-war outrage dominating social media discussions.
Industry analysts have described the project as a high-profile political investment as much as a cinematic release, given its unprecedented budget and promotional blitz. However, across the critical landscape, from newspapers to entertainment sites, the verdict has been strikingly consistent. Critics argue the film offers spectacle, access, and luxury, but provides precious little insight into its subject or the political era it documents.
