Notes on a Scandal

Well, this is all very unpleasant, isn’t it?  And somewhat predictable, perhaps?

David Ortiz, until this season the ever-grinning, always optimistic President of All Things Good in Red Sox Nation, has been named in an article in the New York Times as having tested positive for performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) in 2003, the year before the Sox broke their World Series drought with their first championship since 1918.

And now, less than a day since the news broke, everyone is trying to figure out what it all means.

I’ll be the first to admit that I was born with a Red Sox hat on, and I’m absolutely loyal to my team, but I hope I’m not so partial as to be blind to the bad and to embrace only the good.  I write the following as a fan of the team specifically, as a fan of the sport in general, and as a guy wants to see the world in a “glass half-full” kind of way but is constantly reminded that it is, in fact, so often nearly empty altogether.  So a few thoughts:

******

I’ve read a few articles/blog entries about how David Ortiz, like others who have tested positive (Manny Ramirez), who have faced damning evidence outside of a court of law (Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa …), or who have admitted to using banned substances and written tell-all books (you-know-who), is no longer considered a candidate for the Hall of Fame.  Let’s be honest here - Ortiz was never going to be a serious candidate for the Hall in the first place.  The Red Sox Hall of Fame?  Absolutely still a candidate, no matter what.  All the clutch hits, and there were many, and impressive stats are overshadowed by what he meant to the faithful as a person rather than just a ballplayer, with a personality as big as Fenway itself.  The fantastic memories, carrying the team through the mid-part of the decade, the whole “Big Papi” mystique … great stuff, but it meant a lot more to the region than it ever did to the game as a whole.  In the end, he only had a handful of great years, and if he’d never been touched by scandal of any degree, he still wouldn’t be a viable Hall of Fame candidate.  Five or so great years is far from a qualifier. 

*****

This whole ordeal underscores why I usually prefer not to get jerseys or t-shirts with specific player names on them.  My exceptions to this rule will generally be either retired players who have retained clean reputations, or oddities/freakshows upon whom we will look back fondly no matter what their career accomplishments add up to. My favorite player growing up was Mike Greenwell, and I have a #39 replica jersey (the boring bluish gray roadie from the late 80s) – he's the clean retiree.  The Sox have a left-handed Japanese pitcher who doesn't look at home plate when he throws the ball, thus I have a Hideki Okajima shirt – he's the oddity.  As far as the freakshow example goes, I really wish I had a Rich Garces/El Guapo shirt - someday ... someday. I had a million chances to get one and blew it. (And please believe me when I say that I call Garces a “freakshow” in the most loving way possible.  That dude was awesome.)

*****

Did the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox, with Ortiz and Ramirez leading the offense, in fact have their championship years tainted by this?

In the short term, possibly, but in the long run I don’t think anyone’s going to care too deeply (except Yankees fans, or maybe some St. Louis Cardinals fans - see below).  In 2004, the team overcame the Curse of the Bambino and made the greatest comeback in the history of baseball, if not all of sports.  It was the team full of “idiots”, with a caveman in center field, Pedro throwing nasty stuff with a greasy Chia Pet on his head, and Dave Roberts earning a reputation in a span of just a few weeks that will allow him to never have to pay for a meal or a drink in Boston for the rest of his life.  2004 will be remembered for the trade of Nomahh, the arrival of Orlando Cabrera and his 2,332,081 handshakes, and Doug Mientkiewiczwickiemienwickz trying to hold the final pitched ball of the World Series ransom from the team.  There was something about a bloody sock, too, if I remember correctly …

These are just a few of the many reasons that 2004 will continue to warm the hearts of the Nation.  Those memories will last.  The Ortiz thing – ugly as it is – will pass, as soon as the next wave of names comes out, as soon as the next sports scandal steals away everyone’s attention.  Or as soon as this year’s World Series ends, when the baseball world can celebrate their new World Champions (unless, of course, that team is the Red Sox … which, I’m not going to lie, would be awesome and downright preferable, thankyouverymuch).

As far as 2007 goes, we’ll remember it for Josh Beckett’s clutch performance against Cleveland in the ALCS.  We’ll remember it as the year that Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia showed baseball fans that the Sox don’t have to buy all their stars from the free-agent pool, and that they had a very solid farm system.  It was the year that the Red Sox finally had a dominant closer who, quite possibly, had forgotten to take his medications for several months in a row – a guy who will be responsible for a generation of little league pitchers shifting their gaze, all crazy-eyed, off their chin and to home plate before throwing the ball.  Mike Lowell, the grizzled veteran throw-in who came over with Beckett, earned chants of “RE-sign LOW-ell, DON’T sign A-Rod!” literally moments after the Series ended.  It was the year Jon Lester came back from cancer to earn the title of “ace” starter.  Diasuke Matsuzaka showed he was worth the ridiculous investment Theo made in the Japanese star (for the first couple of seasons, at least).

And, no offense to the Rockies, the Sox were clearly the better team throughout.

I wasn't naive enough to think that the team would be left untainted (well, maybe a little ...).  There are about 100 names on “the list”, and quick math would indicate that every team could probably expect, on average, to have 3-4 players on it.  So the fact that the Sox had names on the list is far from shocking.  There may even be more - rumors about Nomar sprung up around the time of his SI cover, for instance.  Johnny Damon was mentioned a couple of times.  Jason Varitek, too, especially since he spent a significant amount of time recovering from injuries, coming back to play a grueling schedule at a physically demanding position.  But until anyone learns otherwise, they're just unfortunate, hopefully misguided rumors.

What does shock and completely disappoint me, though, is who exactly it was that tested positive.

Nobody would have cared if Mark Bellhorn or Curt Leskanic was revealed to have tested positive. Given how strongly Ortiz seemed to take a stance about steroids (going so far as to say that those who test positive should be suspended for a full year rather than just 50 games), and given how upbeat and positive (and un-douchebaggy) he seemed to be, I thought he was clean. I really did.

So now, do I look at him as a cheater?  Do I look at him as a liar like Palmeiro, who insisted with a finger-wag to Congress that he never used banned substances?  Do I look at him as a guy who made a bad decision six years ago but has since come to his senses and has been clean ever since?

I don’t know.  The news is too fresh, and there’s so much of the story left to be told.

Drama queens like the Boston Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy have already been quick to say that Ortiz’s "entire Red Sox career is a lie", but anyone who knows his work also knows that he loves being the first to jump headfirst off a bandwagon.  Once someone attains a level of celebrity or fame, news outlets write obituaries in advance that may not run for years, just in case.  When Michael Jackson died, half of what you read in the paper had been written before we learned the news.  I get the feeling that people like Shaughnessy had already written this column a million times in his head.  Now he finally gets a chance to commit it to public record.

But still, I want to trust in David Ortiz if for no other reason than he’s David Ortiz.  He’s never shown himself to be anything other than what we see on the field – a big, loveable goof who loves his fans and enjoys playing ball.  He’s an upbeat guy.  He’s incredibly charitable with local foundations.  He’s a good egg by all accounts, even if his personal lifestyle choices apparently aren’t quite as impressive.  A-Rod has been unlikeable for a long time; Ortiz, not a day.  This is where I just can’t shake my personal bias at the moment.

Much like Fox Mulder, I want to believe.

That said, I’m not excusing him based on personality alone.  History tends to prove the cliché that where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire.  I’m not trying to gloss over the news of the day while waiting for another, worse story about someone else to come along and capture everyone else’s attention.

I just think it’s unfair to completely condemn him so quickly, though, until we get more information.

As of the time I’m sitting at my desk writing this, we don’t know what he tested positive for.  He may have taken something defined by Major League Baseball as a “performance enhancer” that was not a steroid.  He may have taken something that was not banned by MLB at the time, so he didn’t think it was illegal.  Again, that doesn’t make it right or justified, but until we know exactly what happened, we don’t know exactly what happened.  Our imaginations, given the recent history of baseball’s fallen heroes, are now primed to fill in details that may not have any actual basis in reality.

What we have is an article that contains information that was supposed to have been destroyed years ago by MLB (but wasn’t) and that was supposed to be under court-ordered seal (but was leaked) and that was provided by anonymous lawyers.  Meaning, the whole thing leaves more questions unanswered than not.

In fact, in what seems to me to be an odd turn in the story, Ortiz seemed surprised that his name was on the list in the first place.

From an article on Yahoo Sports:

"I’ve just been told that the report is true,” Ortiz said in a statement after contacting the union. “Based on the way I lived my life I’m surprised to learn I tested positive.”

Has he been telling everyone that he thinks players who test positive should be suspended for a year because he’s a hypocrite, or because he legitimately he thought he was playing clean?  And if he tested positive, was he seriously never told of the result?  Really?

I don’t know.  Which is why I – why we –  need more information before passing judgment.  If it’s the former, it’ll make it a lot easier to say goodbye when Ortiz’s contract with the Red Sox expires, despite what he’s meant to the team for the past half-decade.  If it’s the latter, then who takes the blame?  The players’ union?  Bud Selig?

In all, it’s disappointing, no matter how you look at it.  But I don’t want to banish the guy to the darkest depths of public opinion before the whole story comes out, and I have to believe there’s a LOT more to this story that we just don’t know yet.  With lawyers (anonymous and otherwise), the Times, a legion of sportswriters, bloggers, and radio hosts, and everyone else involved, though, we may never actually *get* the whole story, just parts laced with innuendo, which is a shame.

The difference between Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez, before we start drawing parallels too soon, is that A-Rod admitted to using steroids flat out.  Before Ortiz is damned as a steroid user, we should keep in mind that we have not, as yet, had such an admission from Ortiz or acknowledgment from MLB.  We don’t know what he’s been found to have taken.

Certainly, it would be refreshing if Ortiz held a press conference and just laid everything out without reserve, if in fact he knows more than he’s letting on.

Now, for the Yankees and Cardinals fans (not all of them, but there are some who will be very vocal on the issue) who would argue that the Red Sox championships are tainted and possibly somehow “shouldn’t count”, keep in mind the following:

St. Louis:  you guys had Mark McGwire, who WAS a future HoF’er and a figure of near-legend following his pursuit of Roger Maris’ single-season homerun record.  Had you won a World Series during his years playing under the arch, would you be so willing to relinquish your championship?

Yankees fans:  Keep in mind that during the late 90s and early 00’s, your team was filled with the likes of Andy Petitte (who, to his credit, copped to using steroids, however briefly), Roger Clemens, Chuck Knoblauch, Kevin Brown, and David Justice, who were all publicly named in the Mitchell report.  It could very easily be argued that the Yankees championships of the late 90s were tainted, also.

Also, we (the royal Nation ‘we’, not me personally, though I would have had I been there myself) gave Alex Rodriguez an unbelievably rude reception earlier this year when he made his first appearance at Fenway after admitting his PED use earlier this spring.  Next time the Sox go to Yankee Stadium, have at it when Ortiz comes up.  Fair is fair.

More important than singling out rooters of just those two teams, though, is something for fans of all teams to realize:  as much as it sucks to have to admit it, every team is somehow going to be involved in this to some degree.  Unless we find out that a team condoned steroid use or directly instructed players or team physicians/trainers to use PEDs (which would literally be the very worst, most unforgiveable news in the history of baseball), everyone seems equally guilty.  Nobody is cleaner than anyone else.

The players who used PEDs all made ridiculous amounts of money playing a silly game that kids play because they love it, not because they get paid.  The owners also make a ton of dough selling souvenirs and jerseys and bobbleheads.  Controversy and scandal will do nothing but help ESPN’s ratings, bring a higher number of calls to sports talk radio, and increase page views for messageboards and blogs.

Given these, I think we can all agree on one thing, if nothing else, no matter our allegiances:  the true losers here – as always – are the fans. 

Braces update, the death of WBCN, a few more horror movies

So apparently I have "small teeth", this according to my orthodontist.  

I went for my monthly adjustment yesterday, and they applied a "torque wire", which is essentially used to change the angle of the teeth in relation to their positions in the jaw.  My upper front teeth have always sort of slanted in toward my throat (not at an extreme angle, but enough to notice if you're looking at them), and though they've moved quite a bit since last October, there's still some work to do.  But, looking into my mouth, he said he had a "predicament" - the gap between my top front four teeth has closed, but now there's a gap between my canines and my first pre-molars.  So I have that going for me, which is nice.

Anyway, he took a few moments in considering the next step, and I'm no expert (obviously), but I think he punted in favor of working on another problem (the angle) first.  I dunno.  My "small teeth" may mean that the gaps will take longer to shift/fill, or it may mean that I'm not going to have a nice, tight row of choppers.  

Either way, I'm extremely excited about the changes in my teeth so far, to the point that if I was told "that's it, we can't fix them any further" and the braces came off immediately, I'd be thrilled.  I've always been incredibly self-conscious about the way they look, and now I can't wait to show them off once the metal comes out.  (That's the "brace metal".  I will never, *ever* lose "The Metal".)

This photo is about a month old, but you get a good idea of the changes in just a few months (click for a larger version):

And to think that I wasn't sure I'd make it after the first few days!  My teeth were so screwy that the brackets didn't allow me to properly chew my food at first since I didn't have enough surface area touching to grind my food.  I'm not sure how long I have left, but I'm so used to them at this point that I'm not sure I really care so long as they're doing their job.  That's not to say I'm not looking forward to getting them off, of course.  I can't wait to bite directly into an apple again.

****

I haven't always been the biggest fan of WBCN, but "The Rock of Boston" has always been part of my life as a music fan.  No matter what city I find myself in, there's always a station broadcasting at or very near 104.1, but I'm always a little disappointed that these other stations aren't also WBCN.  

In high school, WAAF was essentially a hair-metal station, and WZLX was only classic rock.  The broadcasting range for WFNX didn't reach my house.  But WBCN was steady and fairly eclectic, all things considered.  They played a good amount of older stuff, some decent modern rock, and a good amount of local music, which other stations tended to avoid like the plague.  They would broadcast live shows from the Paradise or the Orpheum, and I'd hoard blank audio cassettes to make sure I could capture great live sets or in-studio interviews as they happened.

When I moved to Boston in fall '92 to go to BU, I occasionally took a stroll over to the studio's home over in the Fenway area to try to gather autographs (that's how I met Henry Rollins once).  I skipped a chemistry class one morning to see Father Guido Sarducci "exorcise" Fenway Park (and got one of only 104 limited edition t-shirts commemorating the event).  I got to go inside the studio and hang out for about an hour once with Mark Parenteau while interviewing him for a journalism class.  (This was while he was still a popular, well-enough respected DJ - before the unpleasantness.  He was cool with me, though, and didn't even approach being inappropriate or weird with my relatively wide-eyed naive self.)

I wasn't particularly a fan of Howard Stern at the time, and I dreaded some of the DJs.  The music gradually gravitated to generic playlists that every other modern rock station seemed to be using.  But still, they had a legacy, and they still meant a lot to a lot of people, including me.  

And now we're on the verge of losing them forever, as they'll be changing formats next month.  I haven't lived in Boston now for about six years, but this still makes me sad.  

It's a sign of the times, I guess.  K-rock, Stern's pre-satellite NYC home-base, became a pop station a few months ago too.  And for whatever degree of complaint I may have about these changes, it's not as if I actually listen to the radio either.  I'm always listening to my iPod or using Pandora at this point.  So people like me, we may not have intended to kill the patient, but we didn't do anything to save him, either.  

****

Nicole and I had a discussion about my horror movie recommendations and she proposed a few of her own that I had overlooked:

"The Ring" - I really enjoyed it.  The Japanese original is also very creepy, but as American remakes go, they did a really good job (supposing you can suspend your disbelief, of course).  The sequel, however ... Oof.  That was rough.

"It" - Even though they changed a significant aspect of the story's finale, the rest of the story holds up pretty well compared to the novel.  I haven't seen this in a while, but the "head in the fridge" scene really shocked me considering this was made-for-TV.  And Tim Curry as Pennywise?  Yikes!

"The Shining" - Another Stephen King adaptation that's holds up to the reputation that precedes it.  Kubrick, Nicholson ... yes, yes, yes.  "Here's Johnny" and all that.  But the story's the thing, right?  And this is a good one.

"Drag Me to Hell" - Sam Raimi's latest was completely underrated and overlooked.  There's not a lot of blood, and there isn't a high body count, but sometimes a simple tale with a slight gross-out factor can be very effective and a heckuva lot of fun.  Case in point.

Horror movies for your consideration (also known as "a lazy blog entry")

Previously, on Facebook, I updated my status to read:

Remember when Michael found the dead dove in the bag marked "dead dove" in his fridge on Arrested Development and said "Well, I don't know what *I* was expecting"? That's how I felt watching the "Friday the 13th" remake the other night.

A former co-worker responded that she had also just seen it, but that she was a relative newcomer to the "horror realm", and that she was "now addicted". 

First of all, welcome to the club.  Second, what took you so long?  And third ...

There are so, so many really horrible "horror" movies out there, and it's really easy to get suckered into watching something awful at the expense of seeing something awesome.  I put "horror" in quotes, because all too often these films are "boo! scary" (relying on someone jumping out of a closet at a predictable time, for instance) rather than actual suspenseful "oh crap, here it comes!" scary, or genuinely "wow, that's creepy and disturbing" scary.  It's all to easy to forget that you're supposed to care about the characters you're watching in most modern horror movies (say, since the mid 1980s), since we've seen the plot devices time and again.  The characters become disposable.

Fortunately, there are some truly excellent works in the genre that I heartily recommend.  Mostly, this list is for my ex-coworker, but if you're looking for a good scare, maybe I can turn you on to something good (or vice-versa!  I'll give almost anything a try, as long as I'm in the right mood).

Classic slasher horror:

The original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is one of the greatest horror movies of all time, in my estimation.  We didn't know Freddy Krueger's full backstory yet, so he was a mystery.  Adding to the creepy factor is that, in this first film of the series, we never really get a good look at Freddy's face, just ominous shadows hidden in the dark under his hat.  Like they say, sometimes what you don't see is scarier than what you do.  The violence and bloodletting are unrelenting, and unlike the sequels, in which Freddy gets a clever (er, "clever" - it gets old, fast) one-liner in after every kill, the action is not played for dark comedy.  Freddy's a bad-ass, he will do bad things to you without thinking twice.  And that scene toward the beginning, when he comes down the alley and his arms are about 10 feet long?  Still creeps me out to this day.  Awesomeness.

I'd also recommend "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", which is, I suppose, considered part of the series ... but it isn't, really.  Heather Langenkamp, the heroine of the first film, returns to play ... Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrays the heroine of the first film.  Something evil has taken shape in the "real" world (not the Freddy-verse), but it has taken the form of the fictional character Freddy Krueger.  Robert Englund, who played Freddy, plays Robert Englund, the actor who played Freddy.  (He also plays the new incarnation of Freddy, who isn't really Freddy.)  It's a pretty clever twist on the series, and definitely worth a shot if you're up on the rest of the series.

The rest of the series is utterly forgettable, though.  You could do worse, but if you skip them, you're not missing out on a whole lot.

Also directed by Wes Craven, and an obvious choice for this list, is "Scream", which also plays with the concept of a horror movie acknowledging the important role of other horror movies.  Very fun, very witty, and very clever, especially on one's first viewing.  The two sequels are dreadful, though, and should be avoided at all cost.  Neve Campbell is also the covergirl for "Big in the 90s, Honest!" magazine (along with Bridget Fonda).  Though highly recommended, one should skip this one until after having viewed other slasher films from the 80s, otherwise the jokes will fall flat or seem confusing. 

The scariest slasher film ever is John Carpenter's "Halloween", proof that the boogeyman is very real and very scary.  Though just everyone knows who Michael Myers is at this point, it would be shameful of me to ruin any aspect of this film for those few who haven't seen this work of near-perfection, so I won't comment on any specifics.  The soundtrack, written by Carpenter himself, deserved an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor.  It's that important to the film (and that good). 

Again, forget the rest of the series even exists and only watch this one.  With the lights off.  (And the door locked.)

(A side note: one of the problems I have with the horror genre is perfectly exemplified in this film, awesome as it may be.  The eternally cute and perky PJ Soles was 28 years old when she played Lynda, who was supposed to be a high school student in the film.  And she looks it.  The miscasting of actors who are significantly older than the characters they portray is a major pet peeve for me.  I know it's because you can't actually have 17 year olds getting naked on-screen just before they're offed, but still ... if you're relying on nudity to sell a horror movie, the movie probably isn't too great to begin with.  Not to be a prude, of course.  I love boobs as much as the next guy.  And sure, sometimes in the context of a horror movie it's fine and somewhat expected.  But if you're relying on it ... ehh, maybe not so much.)

One more from John Carpenter: "The Thing".  Kurt Russell plays a scientist isolated with a small band of others in a frozen base in Antarctica when a shape-shifting alien starts to take the appearance of those it has killed.  Nowhere to go, and limited resources with which to defend themselves.  More "what ... the ... hell ..." moments than just about any other movie I can remember.  There's so much disturbing and grotesque imagery, but there's a reason for it, unlike the "guts for guts' sake" nonsense of "Saw" or "Hostel", for instance.  ("Saw" and "Hostel" are utter wastes of time, for the record.  Terrible stories, bad filmmaking, and shameful excuses for "horror" movies.)  Great stuff.

Two overlooked gems by director Neil Marshall:

"The Descent" is the story of a group of female friends who decide to enjoy a "girls' night out" in the form of a caving expedition.  Bad things happen.  Very bad things.  I'm talking "bloodthirsty mutants" bad, with a side order of claustrophobia.  The concept of the "strong female battling the evil villain" is not a new one, but it plays out in a fairly original and compelling way, and the story (despite the tacked-on Hollywood ending) is well crafted and intriguing.  Not all of the characters are as sympathetic as you think they might be, and each has specific (and well-founded) motivations to justify their actions, unfortunate as they may occasionally turn out.  

Also, and in all seriousness, to see this film properly you need to turn the lights off completely.  So much of the action takes place in the dark that room lighting may make it difficult to see everything that's going on on the screen.  You'll thank me later, I promise (and for once, I swear there's no "gotcha, the joke's on you" punchline.  Not only is the subject matter dark, so is the actual film.  They're in a cave, dude.  Go with me on this.)

"Dog Soldiers" is the best werewolf movie since "An American Werewolf in London".  It's also a pretty solid war movie, since it's about a group of British soldiers on a training mission in Scotland who find themselves trapped in a semi-abandoned house when the fit hits the shan.  There's a fair amount of gallows humor, and plenty of blood and guts for the gore crowd.  I didn't think about it until well after I'd seen the movie, but one of the aspects I really appreciated about this film is that it plays to an audience of adults so well because there are no dumb teenagers doing dumb teenage things and making dumb teenage mistakes in it.  You've got hardnosed, tough-as-nails soldiers with a supply of weapons at their disposal, and they're still up shit creek.  And hey, one of the characters is named Bruce Campbell, a nod to the man himself.  Considering it's got no known "name" actors, a relatively low budget, and a virtually no expectations to live up to, I think it really stands up very well to many of its contemporaries.  Also, I'm sure you can find a copy on DVD for less than $5 if you look hard enough.  ($5 well spent.)

"28 Days Later" / "28 Weeks Later"
Danny Boyle made a handful of really solid movies before "Slumdog Millionaire", and one of them re-invented zombie films as we know them.  "28 Days Later" is a personal favorite (as in "personal top 10 favorite movies of all time" favorite), redefining unrelenting horror in just less than two hours.  Boyle insists that the unleashed hordes are "infected", not zombies, but that's all semantics.  You get bitten, you turn.  That's a zombie movie to me.

Nobody is safe.  People you expect to stick around a while?  Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to them.  People you think you can trust?  Perhaps that priest isn't all he's cracked up to be.  Think there's nothing hiding around the corner?  Don't be so sure.  Because you're surrounded, and you're going to have to run.  And you'll never be able to stop running or let your guard down, even if you're able to make it to the military outpost that's rumored to exist ...

The sequel, though not directed by Boyle, is also quite strong.  The strength of the this film is that it doesn't try to live up to its predecessor (it realizes it would be an almost impossible task), instead taking the story of the outbreak in an entirely new direction.  In the first film, you see the very early events that lead to the outbreak, but you're thrust into the story not entirely sure of what happened (though you do, in fact, know it happened to the entirety of London, if not all of England, as a result of science-gone-wrong, 28 days ago).  In this film, you see the outbreak as it happens, from "patient zero" right through the re-destruction of London.  The first scene, set at the same time but completely separate from the events of the first movie, sets the tone perfectly (and heartbreakingly), and asks you, the viewer, "well, what would YOU do in that situation?"

It's fair to say that you don't need to see "28 Days Later" prior to seeing "28 Weeks Later", but I'd strongly suggest it, just to be safe. 

I'm a sucker for zombie movies, I'll be the first to admit. Any fan of the genre will wholeheartedly also recommend "Dawn of the Dead" (the Romero original is a classic, of course, and the 2004 remake by Zack "Watchmen/300" Snyder is surprisingly good - to this day, I think the opening credits are masterful) and the playful-yet-still-zombieriffic "Shaun of the Dead" (which is enjoyable enough on its own, but even better if you're familiar with the films that "Shaun" was influenced by). 

You may be asking yourself, "where are the vampires?"  I omit them, simply because I can't recall seeing any truly awesome/scary movies with vampires as the protagonists.  "Blade" ain't horror.  I refuse to watch whiny emo "Twilight" crap.  It ain't horror, either.  "Interview With The Vampire" wasn't scary. 

That's not to say there aren't great vampire stories - they're just not horror the way I define it.  I recently watched "Let The Right One In", which was an absolutely gorgeous gem of a movie (soon to be ruined with an American re-make!), and which deserves its own post.  It was fantastic.  And to my surprise, I've found "True Blood" to be a lot of fun, too.  I didn't expect to like it at first, and now I can't wait for new episodes.

So there you go ... a handful of slasher flicks, some cool walking dead films, werewolves, a shapeshifter, and hungry cave mutants.  A solid start, I think, for any horror newbie.  Enjoy!