Is the Melania movie really bad
Executive summary
The new documentary Melania lands as a technically glossy, tightly produced portrait that many critics call a vacuous PR vehicle rather than an illuminating film about its subject, though a minority of commentators and supporters praise its access and cinematic sheen [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reception is sharply polarized: mainstream reviewers generally fault it for lack of substance while pro-Trump outlets and fans emphasize its craftsmanship and human moments, and the film’s high-profile backstory — Brett Ratner’s return and Amazon MGM’s reported $40 million acquisition — colors how audiences interpret it [1] [2] [5].
1. A beautiful surface, little depth: critics’ consensus
Multiple established outlets describe Melania as beautifully shot but emotionally and journalistically thin, arguing that the film’s sumptuous production design and controlled access do not translate into real insight about Melania Trump’s interior life or political role (New York Times summary: “glossy, curiously impersonal” [1]; SMH: “beautifully shot but short on substance” [2]; Guardian: scenes read as gilded trash and rework familiar imagery without real interrogation [6]).
2. PR vehicle or permitted intimacy? The question of control
A key critique is that Melania is effectively produced under the subject’s watch, which critics say explains its deference and editorial limits: reviewers and commentators routinely call it a vanity project or PR vehicle that stages moments without allowing messy or probing contradictions to surface (Express: “dull vanity project” and notes of editorial control [7]; Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald note Melania’s producer role and carefully managed access [6] [2]; Daily Mail frames it as intimate and surprisingly apolitical, reflecting a friendlier read tied to that control [8]).
3. Polarized audience and partisan framing
Responses break down predictably along ideological lines: several critics walked out or labeled it “terrible,” while partisan and sympathetic outlets and fans treat it as a rare, flattering portrait — Fox argued devotees would see it as a “treat,” and the president himself praised parts of the film after viewing “pieces of it” (BuzzFeed and Rotten Tomatoes user comments capture derision and low audience patience [9] [10]; Fox: supportive framing for fans [4]; People: Trump praised what he’d seen [11]).
4. The Ratner comeback and money on screen
The film’s provenance matters to its reception: Brett Ratner’s return to directing after years of industry ostracism and a reported $40 million acquisition by Amazon MGM are frequently noted as shaping both production values and public reading of the project, with critics saying the budget shows but can’t buy genuine revelation (New York Times and SMH point to visible money and the $40 million Amazon purchase; Express highlights Ratner’s controversial comeback [1] [2] [7]).
5. Verdict: “Really bad” depends on the metric — substance vs. style
If “really bad” is judged by journalistic rigor, critical surprise or new insight, the verdict among major critics is yes: the film is shallow, managerial, and functionally a PR exercise rather than a probing documentary (New York Times: no closer to knowing her; Guardian and SMH: short on substance and a puff piece [1] [6] [2]). If the metric is visual polish, intimate access to staged private moments, or serving a pro-Melania audience, the film succeeds for its intended viewers — a small but vocal constituency and sympathetic outlets call it a glossy, affectionate portrait (Daily Mail and Fox emphasize tenderness and spectacle; People notes presidential endorsement of parts [8] [4] [11]). Review aggregator and user reactions skew negative overall, and many critics recommend skipping it unless the viewer specifically wants a stylized tribute rather than a serious documentary (Rotten Tomatoes listings and user reviews collect walkouts and low ratings [5] [10]).