This is an odd question, I'm sure, but let's be clear:

By "help," I mean financially?
By "hurt," I mean pigeon-hole his acting?

Prior to Pulp Fiction in 1994, Sam Jackson has been around a long time, mostly in bit-parts until he received some recognition in an unusually meaty supporting role as the drug addict in Jungle Fever.

Afterward, Sam seemed to thrive (with rare exceptions) on the loud, brass characters reminiscent to his character in Pulp.

Will History essentially view Jackson as an overestimated actor who limited his career for big paychecks, or will History show him as a diverse character-actor who only occasionally "overacted?"

I'm a fan of Jackson. He was amazing in Pulp Fiction. He's done some crap movies, but plenty of popular actors have. I don't think a movie like Pulp Fiction can hurt your career.

And he still delivers one of my all-time favorite lines of dialogue in a movie. "English muthafucka! Do you speak it?"

Becoming a lead actor, no matter how crappy the films happen to be, is always a good thing for a career. Pulp Fiction elevated Jackson from a character actor to a star.

It's not like he wasn't playing loud, brass characters before. Remember his brief role in Coming To America?

What? How is Mace Windu anything like Jules? He's not loud.

"The Force motherfucker! Do you use it?!?"

Yeah, but we LOVE the loud, brash Jackson. I expect that when I see him in a movie.

It's not his fault. Morgan Freeman gets all the "thoughtful and quiet" roles.

I'd like to see a buddy picture where they mix it up and switch personas (like Ackroyd and Belushi in Neighbors).

Freeman did showcase a little bit of Jackson shoutin' in "Wanted". It was great to hear.

What's funny is that he got great acclaim for Street Smart (another film in which he plays a Jackson-esque character), but didn't being hugely famous until Driving Miss Daisy (where he established his more famous persona).

I think it only helped it. Because of that role he's been afforded the opportunity to headline many films. Sure, he does tend to play the same guy a lot, but I've never thought he had incredible range as an actor to begin with. He does something and he does it good. Works for me.

Only helped. Period.


It's not like he's played Jules in every or even most movies he's been in since.


I think his greatest performance by FAR was in "The Red Violin". A wonderful dramatic turn. He also had great, non-Jules-like performances in "1408", "Black Snake Moan", "Changing Lanes", "Unbreakable" [he was AWESOME there], heck even in "Deep Blue Sea".

I never liked Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction. I reach for the Fast Forward button when his pretentious monologue comes on at the end of the film.

Everyone else in the movie is good.

I would say it helped.