Donal Logue finds a sweet spot in ‘Terriers’ role |

Donal Logue finds a sweet spot in ‘Terriers’ role

Donal Logue is the star of a show, “Terriers,” that has a lot going for it.

It has a clever premise — an ex-cop and ex-crook working together as private detectives — sharp plotting, strong acting, critical acclaim and the backing of a network — FX — with a taste for taking chances, and a track record of pulling them off (“Rescue Me,” “Sons of Anarchy,” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “Justified” and so on).

“Terriers” has a scruffy, unkempt charm. Logue (“Life,” “ER,” “Grounded for Life”) plays Hank Dolworth, a cop who left the force under less-than-ideal circumstances. He’s kicked the booze, but can’t quite quit his ex-wife. His partner, Britt (Michael Raymond-James of “True Blood”) is an expert thief. Britt sees this as a chance to go straight, even if the kinds of things Dolworth asks him to do are only slightly less illegal than his old gig.

Together, they roam the low-rent, sun-blasted ‘hoods of Ocean Beach, San Diego, sharing a beat-up pickup truck and clearly enjoying getting on each other’s nerves — no job too big or small. Then again, with so little separation between their past lives and present, the little jobs have a way of turning into big jobs very quickly.

“It has this feeling like the buddy shows of the ’70s,” Logue says. “But I think that we fight really hard to make sure that, emotionally, it’s right on target. It’s a little less ‘case-of-the-week,’ and a little more about the organic movements of these people’s lives, and what they contend with, from my mentally ill sister to my relationships.”

The show attempts to strike a balance between self-contained episodes and a larger ongoing story. So it’s not necessary to watch “Terriers” from day one to figure out what’s going on. (But you can catch up with On-Demand episodes.)

The show has picked up plenty of critical support, particularly online, in what Logue calls “blog-land.” Some have affectionately noted its throwback-style appeal, like “The Rockford Files” with more contemporary language and subject matter.

“I have no problem taking any kind of comparisons to that,” says Logue. “I think it also is reminiscent of this kind of Golden Age of television, where you really felt like these people were in your home, and were your friends. You felt a special kinship with them.”

Logue says he easily relates to his “Terriers” character. Although he went to Harvard, he grew up in California, and knows the show’s locations well. His sister in the show is also played by his real twin sister, Karina.

“I am who I am — I’m not going to ever pretend to be a super-hunky square-jawed American superhero,” he says. “I like to drag things towards what I think my natural strengths are. I find when I get changed up a lot and into things that I’m not — at that point, I don’t even know how to walk or talk.”

The one thing “Terriers” doesn’t have is a massive following of viewers — the show fell below the half-million mark for last week’s episode, according to .

Of course, not every great show catches on at first. Logue suspects that the initial ad campaign was a little too mysterious. Apparently, some viewers thought “Terriers” was going to be about dogs.

What does the “Terriers” name stand for•

“God knows,” says Logue. “The bane of the show’s existence, it seems like. I don’t know if it’s an old reference to private investigators’ tenacity . .. It’s just been a little cutesy. It seems to have caused a lot of confusion that ultimately has not served us well.

“I think that’s what hurt us right out of the gate. People really didn’t know that it’s a fairly poignant drama. I think we hit both emotional depths pretty strongly and delicately … compared to that whole (advertising) campaign that seemed very flip. It really spun everything in a misdirection that we’re starting to recover from.”

Additional Information:


&#149 10 p.m. Wednesdays, FX

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.