Set in the People's Republic of China during the 1990s, the film centers on a 13-year-old substitute teacher, Wei Minzhi, in the Chinese countryside.

The film addresses education reform in China, the economic gap between urban and rural populations, and the prevalence of bureaucracy and authority figures in everyday life.

[4] By 1993, it was clear that much of the country was making little progress on implementing nine-year compulsory education, so the 1993–2000 seven-year plan focused on this goal.

[7][9][13][14] There are also, however, elements of heavy editing—for example, Shelly Kraicer noted that many scenes have frequent, rapid cuts, partially as a result of filming with inexperienced actors.

After putting the lesson on the board, Wei usually sits outside, guarding the door to make sure no students leave until they have finished their work.

In the city, Wei finds the people that Zhang was supposed to be working with, only to discover that they had lost him at the train station days before.

The receptionist (Feng Yuying) will not let her in without valid identification, though, and says the only way she can enter is with permission from the station manager, whom she describes as "a man with glasses".

The next day the station manager (Wu Wanlu) sees her at the gate again, through his window, and lets her in, scolding the receptionist for making her wait outside.

After Wei and Zhang are reunited, the station manager arranges to have them driven back to Shuiquan village, along with a truckload of school supplies and donations that viewers had sent in.

The version of the film released overseas ends with a series of title cards in English, the last of which reads, "Each year, poverty forces one million children in China to leave school.

[15] Jean-Michel Frodon of Le Monde maintains that the film was produced "in the shadow of two superpowers" and needed to make compromises with each.

[25] The film addresses the prominent place that bureaucracy, and verbal negotiation and struggle, occupy in everyday life in China.

[18] For this reason, the film has been frequently compared to Zhang's 1993 The Story of Qiu Ju, whose heroine is also a determined, stubborn woman; likewise, Qiu Ju is also filmed in a neo-realistic style, set partially in contemporary rural China and partially in the city,[31][32] and employs mostly amateur actors.

[33] Not One Less portrays the mass media as a locus of power: Wei discovers that only someone with money or connections can gain access to a television station, but once someone is on camera she or he becomes part of an "invisible media hegemony" with the power to "manipulate social behavior", catching people's attention where paper advertisements could not and moving cityfolk to donate money to a country school.

[38][39] Zhu Ying points out the prominence of money in the film creates a conflict between traditional Confucian values (such as the implication that the solutions to Wei's problems can be found through the help of authority figures) and modern, capitalist and individualistic society.

When Wei reaches Zhangjiakou, the film creates a clear contrast between urban and rural life,[27][30] and the two locations are physically separated by a dark tunnel.

While Wei's first view of the city exposes her to well-dressed people and modern buildings, the living quarters she goes to while searching for Zhang Huike are cramped and squalid.

Scott of The New York Times compared the "unbearable" despair of the film's second half to that of Vittorio De Sica's 1948 Bicycle Thieves.

[48]Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 73 out of 100, based on 22 critics, indicating "generaly favourable reviews".

[49] Many focused on the film's ending title cards: several compared them to a public service announcement,[7][50] and Philip Kemp of Sight & Sound wrote, "All that's missing is the address we should send donations to.

[15][45] David Ansen of Newsweek and Leigh Paatsch of the Herald Sun each pointed out that, while the film is "deceptive[ly]" positive[39] at face value, it has harsh criticism "bubbling under the surface".

[52] 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.

[14] 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.

[53] Overall, critics were impressed with the performances of the amateur actors,[20][23][30] and Jean-Michel Frodon of Le Monde called that the film's greatest success.

"[30] Another well-received part of the film was the segment in which Wei teaches math by creating practical examples out of her attempt to raise money for the bus to Zhangjiakou; in the Chinese journal Teacher Doctrines, Mao Wen wrote that teachers should learn from Wei's example and provide students with practical exercises.

[60] Reactions to the city portion of the movie were also mixed: while Zhang describes the second half of the film as an eloquent commentary on China's urban-rural divide[40] and Kevin Lally calls it "startling",[30] Kemp criticizes it for being a predictable "Victorian cliché".