I read from another reviewer that this was compared to "You're next" by a critic and was even rated better/higher than that. Let me back his opinion up: You're next is way superior than this, but it's also a different cup of tea and you shouldn't compare it. Since we can't see who's doing what for a very long time in this movie, this can be compared to the Spanish "King of the Hill" ... you can also mix a bit of Eden Lake into it (as there was a female lead character in that too).

Unfortunately the movie is letting one down after a rather strong beginning, which is a shame. A friend of mine felt that it was stronger (the survival instinct, the title is suggesting). Some things you have to figure out for yourself, but this movie has too many holes to be really great in my book. Still decent though

If you decide to see "Preservation", there is a strong likelihood that you'll find the plot familiar. That's because it dates all the way back to 1924, with Richard Connell's story "The Most Dangerous Game". A few years later, the story would be brought to the big screen in the classic story by the same name, starring Joel McCrea and Leslie Banks. Since then, the story has been re-written time and time again--appearing in television shows (such as "Get Smart", believe it or not) and various movies. So, you cannot exactly give this film many points when it comes to originality.

Like the old story, someone likes hunting. But instead of animals, their quarry is people. The only huge difference here is that you really don't know who the killer or killers are until the end of the film--whereas in the original story is was some twisted Russian aristocrat. Otherwise, the three victims spend more than half the film on the run--trying to avoid being someone's trophy. There really isn't a whole lot more to the story than this.

On the plus side, the film is very tense. Some of the acting is pretty good and despite a small budget, the movie looks good. I also liked the identity of the hunters--this was an interesting twist. On the negative, the film isn't exactly fun to watch. After all, folks are getting butchered and there isn't a whole lot of subtlety about it. I also was irked by a cliché that I often see in films---someone disables their attacker and instead of finishing off the killer, they almost immediately turn their back on them so that they can be murdered. I don't know about you, but if someone is trying to kill me, I don't beat them up and then turn my back unless I am 110% sure that they are truly dead. Overall, I don't consider it a bad nor a good film but there isn't enough about it that would have me recommend you go see it. If you hate violent films, there's also another reason to avoid this one.

I saw promise in this film. In the future, I'd like to see these actors and filmmakers do a more challenging project--something with more originality and which allow them to expand on their skills.

The writing sucks, the acting is mediocre at best, and this movie is predictable. How can 3 adults (including a former soldier) be so stupid?? Turn your back on someone you just beat in the head without knowing if they are unconscious?? A soldier would do this?? Unbelievable.

Walk right up to your water that was stolen that is now hanging in a tree without suspecting a trap?? So dumb.

Beat a guy up in a porta potty and then DON'T take the gun?? Brainless.

Again, turning your back on someone you just fought with when you don't know if they are unconscious?? That is the epitome of stupidity.

Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time on this lame movie. Perhaps in the hands of a competent writer and director, it MIGHT be okay. But this one is just a waste of time and money.