Most film critics panned the first lady documentary “Melania,” even going outside their professional-reviewer roles to promise that the movie would bomb in cinemas.
But mean-spirited film critics proved inept at business forecasting. The frothy Melania Trump movie (Instagram screen grab above) defied those knocks to gross a decent $7.2 million domestically (U.S. and Canada) its premiere weekend Jan. 30-Feb.1 for Amazon MGM Studios.
The PG-rated movie played on 1,778 screens (1,000 is a wide release), averaged nearly $4,000 per screen and is the third-ranked cinema movie for the weekend. A $2,500 per-screen average is considered solid. Its $7.2 million three-day haul is stellar for a non-concert/music documentary, where $2.5 million is considered very good over the entire run (“Melania” is still playing). Two weeks earlier, “Melania” was projected to post just $3 million for its premiere weekend, in prerelease tracking.
“The film’s box-office prospects seem abysmal,” wrote Variety’s Daniel D’Addario in his review. “It’s tracking very low, and, anecdotally, it became apparent that all of the 20 or so people in my screening room were [just] journalists reporting on the movie.” In other words, zero regular moviegoers.
Tom May of creativebloq.com wrote that “Melania” is an unmitigated disaster, asserting “There is a point where no amount of money, no celebrity endorsement, no marketing genius can make people want something they fundamentally don’t want.”
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd snarked in an over-the-top opinion piece: “Some theaters showing ‘Melania’ were so empty that wags suggested that undocumented immigrants should hide out there.”
Ouch! And as it turns out, these were wrong.
Amazon MGM Studios did not prescreen “Melania” for journalists, correctly anticipating relentless negativity, because cultural elites are hostile to the Trump presidency. So, journalists like the Variety film critic bought tickets to first general-release screenings for the public and quickly posted reviews.
Some 22 professional reviews on movie web site Rotten Tomatoes averaged a dismal 10% for “Melania” (out of 100% and 60% is the threshold for good). Meanwhile, the same web site logged a stellar 99% rating from non-pro moviegoers. Apparently, the troll squad hasn’t piled in yet to tote up negatives.
One reason that boxoffice tracking, which predicts cinema revenue up to six weeks prior to premiere, underestimated the size of the “Melania” audience is because it attracted thongs of light film goers, particularly women aged 34 and older. Hollywood tracking surveys don’t capture infrequent moviegoers well because they are not critically-important to cinema; “Melania” may have done cinema a service by planting the moviegoing seed with some of those infrequents.
This phenomenon was particularly apparent in 2004 with Mel Gibson’s gritty, R-rated “The Passion of the Christ,” whose $370 million in domestic boxoffice astounded Hollywood. Its audience also was composed of light filmgoers, and the joke around Hollywood was that it marked the only time many of the religiously-pious audience ever attended a cinema.
The $7.2 million cinema opening for “Melania” is best for a non-concert documentary in 14 years; “Melania” probably lost another $1 million in boxoffice when a cyclone weather-bomb hammered the Mid-Atlantic states with heavy snow Sunday.
The movie also suffered the loss of some marketing punch when some of its promotion was vandalized, presumably by detractors of the polarizing President Trump. The defacing of posters and billboards seemed to be concentrated in political strongholds of Trump opposition. (Then again, the vandalism might have motivated pro-Trumpers to go to the cinema.)
In another example of scattered irrational anger, an innocuous, upbeat post saying that the movie is “Funny and Entertaining” on social web site Redditt drew outrage from one commenter who typed the same swear word-phrase (starting with the letter F) over and over in response.
The movie itself played best in cinemas located in areas that voted for Trump for president. “The audience was 72% female and 83% over the age of 45, a demographic rarity at a time when the box office is driven by younger men,” wrote Variety. The female demographic was likely attracted by high-fashion throughout the movie.
One tenet of marketing that is re-validated by the “Melania” experience is that a swath of the population, even a minority, that is highly engaged in subject matter can propel a movie to hit status. Trump supporters (the president won the popular balloting receiving 77.3 million votes) gobbled up “Melania” cinema tickets, brushing aside the disdain from the cultural-elite film reviewers.
Professional film critics seemed to go off-topic reviewing politics and the film’s big budget — presumably distaste for Melania’s husband, President Trump. Others were more coherent in their digs by panning its non-stop glitz, which is fair enough.
The movie is richly photographed covering the 20 days in Melania Trump’s pampered life leading up to her husband’s second presidential inauguration a year ago. It spotlights Melania Trump’s spiky high-heel shoes (which literally get close ups!); private jet travel; the first lady-elect planning the lavish inauguration events; the president-elect’s retinue of security, government officials and servants; and glamorous living at private Trump residences and the White House.
Photographing inauguration events, the camera pans by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (whose company distributes “Melania”), billionaire Elon Musk, and other business and political luminaries. There is no revealing look behind-the-scenes of Melania Trump, who is always pictured dressed up, and no insight on her marriage.
Melania Trump was a producer of the documentary, so she was in a position to control the narration. That’s not so unusual for an insider control the story as, in one of many examples, retired basketball superstar Michael Jordan co-produced a well-received 2020 documentary “The Last Dance” about his dynastic pro-basketball team.
In “Melania,” then president-elect Trump gets plenty of screen time, sometimes presented humorously. Besides the non-stop glamor, the movie also shows Melania doing some serious work, such as a poignant meeting with an Israeli survivor of the murderous Hamas attack in 2023. (The woman’s captive husband later was released, early in Trump’s administration.)
Detractors snark that distributor Amazon MGM will lose money on “Melania” because of reportedly paying $40 million for global distribution rights and another $35 million for marketing. No matter how it turns out, “Melania” is a drop-in-the-bucket for the $637 billion-revenue Amazon (that’s nearly two-thirds of a $1trillion!). However, MGM and Amazon Studios are still classified as “independents” in Hollywood; though Amazon is huge outside filmed entertainment, it’s not in the same class as the big five Hollywood major studios.
The $7.2 million domestic cinema opening won’t come close to covering acquisition cost alone, but cinema run continues and the “Melania” package includes several hours of TV programing that Amazon Prime can stream (so the “Melania” package includes more than just a single 1 hour 44 minute movie). If “Melania” attracts consumers to sign up for Amazon Prime membership (that includes the streaming service), it’s a big economic benefit. Conversely, there could be membership cancellations from detractors. “Melania’s” severest critics complain the rich acquisition price is an attempt to pay for political influence by Amazon.
Also, the gripe that “Melania” should not cash in on media fame from government work seems misplaced. Former President Obama bagged a rich program deal with Netflix, despite no Hollywood background. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy was literally worshiped in media of the 1960s as a fashion and style trendsetter, after her early career in publishing media. And Melania Trump was an accomplished model before marrying the president.
Finally, “Melania” marks a return for Hollywood director Brett Ratner, whose credits include the hit “Rush Hour” action/adventure movies, though his involvement is also a lightning rod. Ratner has done little Hollywood work after multiple claims were made in 2017 that he engaged in sex-assault in the past. Ratner denies the claims and was not charged.
Related content:
Leave a Reply