6.0
Scores change as discussion grows. Sina reported the score rising to 6.0 on 24 August (40K+ ratings); the 5.9 opening on 20 August was cited in Liao Weitang's commentary and includes ironic five-star ratings.
Read the report ↗RECEPTION
Big box office, plenty of opinions: what are people actually saying?
Criticism, irony, curiosity, and 'naive camp' coexist. See why media and audiences reached such different conclusions.
THE NUMBERS FIRST
Reception can be counted, but counts are not a verdict.
The figures below come from public reporting and are dated and sourced; scores shift as the discussion changes.
1,490
The Paper counted 838 short reviews and 652 essays on Douban: nearly 80% explicitly reject the film, and about 90% of five-star short reviews are ironic.
See the count ↗Not released
Sing Tao reports Hong Kong audiences travelling to Shenzhen for packed screenings, with sharply divided reactions.
Read the report ↗WHAT THE MEDIA SAY
Four stances, each sourced.
Each view is dated and sourced. The stance label helps identify the article's position; it is not a factual verdict.
The Paper · Liao Weitang
“Does effort automatically equal seriousness?”
Rejects the 'effort equals sincerity' defence, arguing isolated production and a misleading poster-versus-film gap amount to deceptive promotion.
Read the article ↗Hunan Daily New Media · Wu Yurun
“Is it bad? Completely. But is it camp? Utterly — and exactly on point.”
Frames Niulai as 'naive camp' and a cult object whose value lies in the cultural phenomenon, not the film text itself.
Read the article ↗The Paper (republished by HSW)
“A few seconds of rough meme footage can make you laugh; eighty-six minutes of a rough film make you squirm.”
Counted 1,490 Douban reviews and concluded audiences consumed the memes built on Niulai, not the original film.
Read the article ↗Sing Tao Headline · 'Appeal King'
“The harsher the outcry, the higher the box office.”
Records Hong Kong audiences travelling to Shenzhen for packed, polarising screenings of a film not released locally.
Read the article ↗WHAT AUDIENCES SAY
Some call it absurd; others treat it as a collective event.
These voices come from interviews and on-site reporting, with the speaker, outlet, date, and viewing context preserved.
“I really wanted to sleep” … “beyond bored.”
Hong Kong audience member Madam Cheung · Sing Tao interview (2026-08-21)
Watching with her son, who insisted 'the film was good.'
“It is completely absurd. Out of ten, I would give it four.”
Hong Kong audience member Alex · Sing Tao interview (2026-08-21)
His dissatisfaction centred on the production quality.
“Watch it and you regret 86 minutes; skip it and you regret it for life.”
Mainland audience member Mr Zhou, quoting the viral line · Sing Tao interview (2026-08-21)
He bought a ticket precisely because of that phrase.
“The theatre broke into laughter again and again; some people left shortly after it began.”
Observation from a The Paper reporter's screening · republished by HSW (2026-08-19)
People talked, filmed with phones, and some forgot to switch off their flash.
HOW TO READ THE DIVIDE
Box office, attention, and quality are three different things.
Most coverage acknowledges the rough craft but splits on whether the film is still worth watching: some frame it as naive camp or a cult object, while others treat going to the cinema as a participatory event.
These readings can coexist, and the divide is part of the reverse-virality story. Box office proves people bought tickets; memes prove people joined the conversation; neither proves quality. Whether to watch, and how it lands, is yours to decide.