Indeed, great flick.

Wasn't there a TV movie called "The Beast" based on a Peter Benchley story about a giant squid?

Yes. This is the sequel, where the giant squid decides it's an athiest and quests against the church.

I thought it was a mention of this film:

The Beast

The Passion of the Beast. Sucks I know but, so does the movie's lame premise.

Planet of the Cannibals

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295522/

Does anbody remember the antonio banderas flick "The Body"? Isn't this along the same lines?

Same here, we really need to find separate acronyms for these movies, heh.

We did.

PotC = Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

TPotC = The Passion of the Christ

Couldnt the existence of any human being be questioned thousands of years after his or her life? What kind of physical proof can one expect to see to satisy his or her desire to know the truth about someone who existed so many years ago? And don't you think that if Jesus was a big hoax that it would have been taken care of sometime down the road by people who knew it wasnt true. I mean we're not talking about the "legend" of Sasquatch here. If you don't want to believe that Jesus is your savior is one thing, but to say that he never really existed I have to say give me a break.

You can't have it both ways; either humanity can reasonably find proof Jesus's existence was a hoax, or proof can't be found due to the extreme passage of time. Pick.

The existence of any human being hundreds of years after their "time on earth" can be questioned. I think it is silly that people are trying to prove that he never existed. If his existence were not to be true then others would have exposed this a long time ago. What actual proof could exist that shows that Jesus never did exist? This is what I want to see.

I would assume this "proof" would be based on a comparison of historical documentation from the period as set down by those with a Christian bias, inclination or outright agenda and those set down by both secular and other religious denomination sources to see if, in fact, Jesus is only referenced in the former.

In all fairness to this film, I must argue against it being dismissed out of hand simply because it appears it may be an extreme low-budget, DV film. Simple logic dictates that studios are only interested in product that offers a strong inclination toward turning a sizable profit. There are times when they are willing to court controversy with a release featuring contentious material in its narrative, but they are loathe to push forward a film whose subject matter would pose such an extreme affront to the vast majority of Americans' belief system that it could, and would, very likely tarnish the view of the entire studio and its future release slate for untold years ahead in the eyes of a sizable portion of the viewing public. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was controversial and contentious, but its narrative was in alignment with the dominant belief system in America--any studio who passed on the title under the assumption there was no interested audience made a gross miscalculation, and I daresay I would have made such an accusation even prior to the hindsight of PotC's final grosses. By contrast, non-theists like myself--whom this type of film directly targets--and non-Christian theists--a secondary target audience--make up a relatively minor percentage of the American populace. We non-theists were growing, and were hitting a stride in the '70s, but our numbers backslid with the resurgence of the Christian fundamentalist movement in the '80s, a movement which secured a near total symbiosis with the Republican political party in effect even to this day. As a result, there simply isn't a sufficient number of us in the American populace to indicate this type of film would turn a profit. Viewership by non-Christian theists could improve those grosses, but I don't feel qualified to speak on their behalves as to whether this type of subject matter would be compelling to them or not. This factor, combined with the aforementioned extreme negative feedback any studio behind the project would doubtless receive, and it appears rather obvious why this type of film can't be anything but a low-budget, under-the-radar, grassroots DV release.