How did the Melania Trump movie do at the box office

1. Box-office performance versus expectations — modest outperformance of low forecasts

Pre-release projections leaned pessimistic: Box Office Pro and other analysts forecasted a $2–5 million opening weekend and questioned demand for a wide documentary about a polarizing political figure ^{[1] [5]}. When the numbers rolled in, several entertainment trades and news outlets reported a notably higher opening-weekend take—some citing an $8.1 million figure—which industry writers framed as a “significant uptick” over those early forecasts and as one of the stronger documentary openings in recent memory outside of concert films ^[2]. At the same time, other reporting highlighted uneven ticket sales and nearly empty showings in many markets, indicating that outsize regional sales and fervent partisan interest accounted for much of the upside rather than broad mainstream appeal ^{[6] [7]}.

2. The accounting: big purchase price, big marketing, and a high break-even bar

Amazon MGM’s acquisition and production economics reshape how “success” is measured: the studio reportedly paid $40 million for the project (sometimes discussed in reporting as part of a $75 million total number that mixes production and marketing claims), and trade coverage suggested an unusually large marketing push—figures such as another $35 million have circulated in coverage—meaning theatrical revenue would need to be substantial to justify the outlay ^{[4] [8] [9]}. Some critics and commentators have framed the Amazon deal as political rent-seeking or a payoff, since the scale of the purchase is atypical for documentary films and because Melania retained editorial control in ways unusual for studio-financed nonfiction ^{[4] [9]}.

3. Audience patterns, publicity and critical reception — polarized enthusiasm, poor reviews

The film’s release showcased a highly polarized consumption pattern: a handful of screenings sold out and generated exuberant social-media promotion from Trump allies, while many other showtimes were reported as sparsely attended or cancelled, and ticket-snapshot analyses found most showings still had seats available ^{[7] [6] [10]}. Critics were harsh—with mainstream review aggregates cited as very negative—yet fan reactions at some screenings were enthusiastic enough to fuel word-of-mouth within pro-Trump networks, a dynamic that likely translated into concentrated regional box-office strength that lifted initial totals ^{[2] [10]}. The film’s celebrity-studded premiere and high-profile supporters—covered in conservative outlets as inspiring—helped generate press despite critical panning ^{[11] [10]}.

4. Financial and political implications — underwhelming for a blockbuster but meaningful to stakeholders

Measured against typical documentary economics, the film’s theatrical intake—reported in some summaries at tens of millions—represents a notable commercial performance for the form, but when stacked against Amazon’s reported $40 million acquisition plus heavy marketing, analysts have argued the theatrical run alone is unlikely to be profitable and that the project’s value must be read as broader streaming content, prestige, or political optics rather than box-office profit ^{[3] [8] [4]}. Critics and independent commentators explicitly framed the spending and distribution choices as politically freighted—suggesting the outcome matters less as a recoupment exercise than as a cultural and political signal tied to the Trump presidency and its relationship with major media companies ^{[9] [4]}.

5. Bottom line

Melania beat the lowest box-office forecasts and posted a stronger opening than some analysts expected—industry reports revised weekend estimates into the high single-digit millions and opening-day receipts were reported at about $2.9 million—yet the film’s earnings must be evaluated against an unusually large acquisition and marketing expenditure that make theatrical returns appear modest and politically consequential rather than purely commercial ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Alternative perspectives exist: supporters see a successful cultural moment and evidence of demand, while critics see a heavily financed vanity project unlikely to be justified by box-office receipts alone ^{[10] [9]}.