 Rotten Tomatoes gave it a " fresh " 95 % approval rating , based on 43 reviews and Metacritic gave it a 73 , signifying " generally favorable reviews " . Many focused on the film 's ending title cards : several compared them to a public service announcement , and Philip Kemp of Sight & Sound wrote , " All that 's missing is the address we should send donations to . " Zhang Xiaoling , on the other hand , considered the titles to be an implicit criticism of the state of rural education in China , saying , " the news that voluntary contributions have helped 15 percent of the pupils to return to school is aimed to give rise to a question : what about the remaining 85 percent ? " The disagreement about the title cards is also reflected in the critical reaction to the rest of the film 's resolution . Kemp described the ending as " feelgood " and criticized the film for portraying officials and generous <unk> as coming to the rescue , The Washington Post 's Desson Howe called the ending " flag @-@ waving " , and The Independent 's Gilbert Adair called it " sugary " . Alberto Barbera of the Venice Film Festival , on the other hand , said that while the end of the film may have been like propaganda , the rest was a " strong denunciation of a regime that is unable to assure proper education for the country children " . Likewise , Zhang Xiaoling argued that although the film superficially appears to praise the city people and officials , its subtext is harshly critical of them : he pointed out that the apparently benevolent TV station manager seems to be motivated more by audience ratings than by altruism , that the receptionist 's callous manner towards Wei is a result of Chinese " bureaucratism and nepotism " , and that for all the good things about the city , Zhang Huike 's clearest memory of city life is having to beg for food . Zhang and Kraicer both argued that critics who see the film as pro @-@ government propaganda are missing the point and , as Kraicer put it , " mistaking [ one ] layer as the message of the film ... mistaking the part for the whole " . David Ansen of Newsweek and Leigh Paatsch of the Herald Sun each pointed out that , while the film is " deceptive [ ly ] " positive at face value , it has harsh criticism " bubbling under the surface " . Chinese critics Liu Xinyi and Xu Su of Movie Review recognized the dispute abroad over whether the film was pro- or anti @-@ government , but made no comment ; they praised the film for its realistic portrayal of hardships facing rural people , without speculating about whether Zhang intended to criticize or praise the government 's handling of those hardships . Hao Jian of Film Appreciation , on the other hand , was more critical , claiming that the movie was organized around a political message and was intended to be pro @-@ government . Hao said that Not One Less marked the beginning of Zhang 's transformation from an outspoken independent director to one of the government 's favorites . 
