Treasonous propaganda?
Tell them to shove it up the yinyang!
Frankly, all Chinese films are jingoistic.
The PLAN and other services are always pictured
as helping the people and supported by the people.
I will be especially interested in how U.S. reviewers handle the film. American war films have certainly evolved greatly over our lifetimes. Modern films will usually present U.S. and allied characters as real, conflicted individuals. (Some films succeed better than others.) And most modern U.S. films will humanize the enemy to some degree.
Doing right by the characters while not mangling the plot and the underlying politics can get tricky. Patton (1970) is now an old film. (Egads, that means we ain't young no more neither.) But even at that time, Patton was an extremely sophisticated film. The bombastic, tub-thumping glorification of war, so much in evidence in many scenes, is entirely acceptable in that movie because it is all a direct projection of George Patton's own inner vision. The film imposes Patton's view on the viewers.
But at the same time, every other character in the movie recognizes that Patton is a cracked egg, a great commander and someone you want on your side in a fight, but still not right in the head. Many characters have this reaction, and Omar Bradley carries the narrative through the film. It's the tension between the Patton and the Bradley point of view that gives the film its power. The scattered reviews I've seen suggest that The Battle of Lake Changjin is a reversion to crude comic book characterizations. Whether that will play to anyone outside of China is the question. It's a surprising miss in my book.