Zac Efron, Marcia Gay Harden join "Parkland"

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Zac Efron and Marcia Gay Harden are joining Paul Giamatti, Billy Bob Thornton and Jacki Weaver in the cast of "Parkland," the producers announced on Wednesday.

Based on the epic book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy," by the author and former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the adapted screenplay is written by journalist and novelist Peter Landesman, who also will make his directorial debut here.

The book recounts the true story of the chaotic events that occurred at Parkland Hospital in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

The film, to be shot in Austin, Tex., is destined for a 2013 U.S. theatrical release around the 50th anniversary of the assassination.

It will be produced by Playtone partners Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman and Exclusive Media, who will also be financing.

"Zac Efron continues to impress us with his recent shift into more dramatic roles which showcase his exceptional acting skills, and Marcia Gay Harden is an unparalleled actress who gives tour de force performances in every film she appears," said Guy East and Nigel Sinclair, Exclusive Media's co-chairmen, in a statement. "We look forward to seeing their combined talent in Peter Landesman's powerful and mesmerizing story alongside the excellent cast already attached to this film."

Read More..

Gordon Crawford Retires - Hollywood Loses a Great One

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Hollywood should take a moment to regret the retirement this week of Gordon Crawford of Capital Research and Management, one of the wisest, most influential and most successful investors in media and entertainment of the past several decades.

Crawford out a note to friends on Wednesday - on which were copied a Who's Who of leaders in entertainment and technology (no, I'm not sharing) - titled "My Retirement," in which he writes with typical understatement:

"This Friday, December 21, I head down the elevator for the last time at Capital. I have been blessed to spend 41 years at a firm that has grown from $2.0B in assets under management when I joined to one today that manages $1.1T."

That's "T" for trillion. Known as "Gordy" to all, Crawford has been in the business for more than 41 years and has been a mentor and adviser to two generations of entertainment industry leaders. His views are enormously influential in the world of media and entertainment, which is not much of a surprise since his foresight into business trends have been remarkable.

Michael Burns, the vice chairman at Lionsgate, had this to say about him when I asked: "Gordy epitomizes the term 'blue chip investor' on every level. He will forever be considered a Lionsgate family member."

Crawford is a long-time investor in the independent studio, and he helped fend off the hostile takeover advances of Carl Icahn two years ago. He also spearheaded Capital's major holdings in Time Warner Inc., News Corp., Comcast and DirecTV.

While a consummate gentleman, Crawford has never been shy about sharing his views. He fell out with the Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang over Yang's decision to reject a merger with Microsoft in 2008. He exited the investment, Yahoo's stock has never recovered, and the company has suffered successive leadership changes since.

After AOL Time Warner stock declined in the wake of those two companies merging, Crawford pushed for the departure of Steve Case as chairman. And in 2001 he dumped all of his company's 66 million Walt Disney Co. shares over his disapproval of CEO Michael Eisner's performance.

In conversations with TheWrap over the past year, Crawford often has spoken about the need for further consolidation in the entertainment industry, even as he has retained holdings in media companies. He also made sure to pass the baton to his much-younger colleague, Brad Barrett.

Crawford is also a major philanthropist, having put his family foundation name on Southern California Public Radio, where he is a major supporter.
A huge fly fisherman, he frequently takes movie and media moguls fishing at his vacation home.

He observed wryly in his goodbye note: "I have retired, not died (unless the Mayans know something that I don't, seeing the Mayan end of the world is on the same day as my retirement)" and, nice guy that he is, asks his friends to help his now-idle assistant find a new gig.

Read More..

Why "Les Misérables" Looks Like a Holiday Box-Office Smash

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Moviegoers are storming online ticketing sites in advance of the Christmas release of "Les Misérables," and the big-screen adaptation of the Broadway musical has all the makings of a holiday smash.

With a cast that includes Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, expectations are enormous, but based on advance tracking, so is the box-office potential.

The film, made for a reported $61 million, is poised to gross as much as $26 million over its opening weekend, according to BoxOffice.com.

The site predicts that the movie should pick up multiple Oscar nominations and that awards attention combined with a rabid fan base of musical theater lovers will have it beguiling moviegoers well into the new year.

Ultimately, it estimates that "Les Misérables" will rack up as much as $136 million at the domestic box office.

It's well on its way. Early ticket sales at Fandango indicate that "Les Misérables" has the potential to be this holiday's breakout smash, despite stiff competition from the likes of Tom Cruise's "Jack Reacher" and Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," both of which open over the next seven days.

Fandango also reports that the film has smashed records to become the company's top advance-ticket seller among all Christmas Day releases, surpassing its previous record-holder, 2009's "Sherlock Holmes"

It is also the largest advance-ticket seller among movie musicals in its history, supplanting 2006's "Dreamgirls." By mid-day Wednesday, "Les Misérables" was outpacing all other films, even current releases like "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," and was responsible for 40 percent of ticket sales at Fandango.

"There's such a history and good will surrounding the stage musical and this is a film version people have been anticipating for such a long time, that it has turned into the movie event of the holiday season," Dave Karger, Fandango's chief correspondent, told TheWrap.

"We're bullish on it," added Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com. "Based on all the early reviews, this sounds like a crowd-pleaser. When a musical hits, it becomes a beast at the box office."

He noted that "Mamma Mia!," which arrived with less awards pedigree and was derived from a more dimly known stage show, grossed $609.8 million globally, because audiences loved the music.

Movietickets.com did not release any pre-sales information for holiday releases. However, recent surveys it performed of more than 4,000 customers indicate that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for the musical.

Of the major holiday releases, 52 percent of those polled said they were most excited to see "Les Misérables." That was followed by 24 percent for "Django Unchained," 16.5 percent for "Jack Reacher" and 7.5 percent for "The Guilt Trip."

To be sure, not all of the "Les Misérables" reviews have been kind. In TheWrap, Alonso Duralde faulted the wobbly vocal talents of the leads and the director's penchant for close-ups of his emoting stars.

"Director Tom Hooper ('The King's Speech') piles one terrible decision upon another, with the result being a movie so overbearingly maudlin and distorted that it's one of 2012's most excruciating film experiences," Duralde wrote.

Yet, audiences at screenings have been nearly rapturous in their response. Fandango's Karger notes that at a recent screening for members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that he attended, the crowd broke into applause at four different points during the film and gave Jackman and Hooper lusty ovations.

Given that "Les Misérables" tackles such topics as revolution, poverty and prostitution it seems like dark fare for the season, but Karger argues that the film provides enough uplift to appeal to moviegoers looking to get into the yuletide spirit.

"There are scenes of such intense suffering and despair in the movie, but at the end you are left with a profound feeling of love and that gives it a holiday feel," Karger said. "It's a slog through the mud to get there, but when the movie's over you leave the theater with a wonderful sense of hope."

If Karger is right then Universal, which is distributing "Les Misérables," will be feeling very festive when Christmas rolls around next week.

Read More..

Why Older Workers are Better Workers

At a time when high unemployment numbers constantly make the headlines, companies can be selective about whom they want to hire. Older workers  generally don't make the top of lists of potential job candidates for a variety of reasons, some real and some imagined. But with 10,000 baby boomers reaching the age of 65 each day for the next twenty years, hiring companies would do well to re-evaluate this untapped pool of labor, especially once our economy finally gets back on track.

[See Companies with the Most Older Workers.]

According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, people over the age of 40 are protected against being treated less favorably because of age. As these older workers become a bigger part of the workforce, hiring companies will need to objectively consider the positive and negative aspects of each candidate regardless of age. The good news is that, in many ways, older workers are better workers. Here's why older workers make excellent employees:

More direction. Many young people are still struggling to figure out what they want to do for their career and are getting their first exposure to the corporate world. Older workers generally possess a wealth of knowledge and experience gleaned over years of employment, and have a good idea of how to get the job done.

Less turnover. Older workers are less likely to job hop than younger employees. They typically have lower turnover and are absent less.

[See Older Worker Employment Reaches Record High.]

Experience pays off. Many older workers are experienced at the requirements of the job, and know what works and what does not work. This could allow them to get the job done more efficiently or to produce higher quality results. Contrary to popular belief, older employees do not cost employers more than younger workers, according to Peter Cappelli, coauthor of Managing the Older Worker: How to Prepare for the New Organizational Order. Higher wages are not based on age, but on experience, which often benefits the employer to the point that it is worth paying them at a higher level.

Understand the culture. Older employees know and live the corporate culture because they have been immersed in it for years. You won't find very many of them ignoring the dress code or posting inappropriate messages on Facebook.

Fewer dependents. When it comes to health care coverage, older employees do cost more because they are more likely to have health conditions and seek care. But older employees often no longer have as many dependents to include in the health plan as people with young families, which can actually save the company money.

[See 7 Tips for Working for a Younger Boss.]

Of course, older workers may need to be accommodated in some ways, especially if the job is physically strenuous. Older employees will be increasingly reporting to younger supervisors, which could cause friction that will need to be addressed. Flexible schedules may also be important to some seniors who want to pursue other interests outside a full-time job.

Read More..

Baby Boomers Plan Their Retirement Careers

Retirement for the baby boomers is likely to be far different from what their parents experienced. Work will probably be an integral part of everyday life, both to meet financial requirements and to keep busy during an increasing lifespan. Workers approaching retirement should plan now for their pending retirement career.

[See 10 Places to Launch a Second Career in Retirement.]

Most baby boomers (72 percent) say they plan to keep working in some capacity after retirement, according to a 2010 Del Webb survey. The top reason for working in retirement is to ward off boredom and keep busy, while financial necessity came in second. Other reasons for delaying retirement include self-satisfaction and enjoying the job. Some employees are planning to continue working well into the traditional retirement years. A recent Wells Fargo survey found that 25 percent of middle class Americans say they will need to work until at least 80 to live comfortably in retirement.

If seniors will need to work during their retirement years, the nature of the job becomes increasingly important. During our first career we discovered what we are good at, what we like to do, and what we dread doing every day. This knowledge can help us prepare for our second act. Here's how to select a satisfying retirement career:

Aim for a job you enjoy. In a down economy you may be forced to take any available job. But if you are lucky enough to be able to consider a job you might actually enjoy, decide what it would look like. What could you do each day that would make you eager to get out of bed each morning, with great expectations of exciting things to be? It is far better to start the day with an optimistic smile versus an anxious moment.

[See 5 Social Security Changes Coming in 2012.]

Avoid toxic situations. Decide what you would find personally satisfying in a second career and also the tasks you would dread doing. A typical job includes a mix of each, but ideally you want to tip the scale toward what you love.

Test drive your dream job. When you were younger, what did you dream of becoming? Although a ballerina or an astronaut might not be realistic now, think back on what it was you always wanted to do. If a certain career field still intrigues you, try to explore opportunities for a retirement career trying it out.

Play to your strengths. After several decades in the workforce, you probably already know whether you prefer flexibility or routine, independence or supervision, creativity or clearly defined activity, and risk or assurance. Look for a second career that has the characteristics you find most important in a satisfying job.

Read More..

The Real Best Places to Retire in 2012

A blizzard of articles give advice about the best places to retire. They generally recommend fleeing the North and heading for the Sunbelt, to places in the Carolinas, Florida, or Arizona. Occasionally they offer a surprise retirement spot in Iowa or Indiana. Sometimes they even tout retirement locales outside the United States.

[See The 10 Best Places to Retire in 2012.]

These articles rely on statistics such as the cost of living or winter temperatures. But they miss the most important thing--the human element. Here are the real best places to retire:

Stay home. As we get older, moving, making new friends, and acclimatizing ourselves to new surroundings gets more difficult. Don't underestimate the value of your current community. Think long and hard before you cut those connections to go off to get a sunburn.

Your hometown likely offers more senior citizen benefits than you think including tax breaks, low-cost transportation, and subsidized meals. We have friends in the outer suburbs of New York who always thought they would retire somewhere warmer. But they finally realized how important their church community was to them and decided to stay put. Now they visit the senior center for a free meal every Thursday night. They walk at the mall two or three mornings a week and stay for coffee with new acquaintances. And they are still active in their church, among the friends they've known for decades.

[See The 10 Sunniest Places to Retire.]

Move near your children. My brother-in-law spent most of his career working around Pittsburgh, Pa. After he retired, he and his wife gathered together all the brochures and ultimately decided to move to Massachusetts. Their daughter lives outside of Boston and their son is in Rhode Island. They moved from a four-bedroom suburban home to a two-bedroom bungalow in their daughter's town. Their yard is smaller, just right for Grandpa to keep an eye on the grandkids while he relaxes on the patio. They've met new friends through their daughter, and they love their new life, in an area often billed as cold and expensive.

Follow your friends. One fellow I know retired to Maryland. Why? His long-time golfing partner retired there a few years earlier. He moved to the same town, joined the same golf club, and soon they were prowling the links together, just like old times. A year later, another friend joined them, who had a relative living nearby, and they all now play golf twice a week.

Their wives, who had known each other casually, are now close friends. They started a bridge club, brought in some other women, and from there developed meaningful connections to the community. These couples now feel as though, as one of the women put it, "We've lived here all our lives."

[See 10 Places to Retire on Social Security Alone.]

Move back home. One friend of mine grew up in El Paso, Texas. She went to college in California, then got married and moved to Washington, D.C. Some 25 years later, her husband died and she felt lost in the big city. She moved back west, to nearby New Mexico, where she started a small business which included some clients in Washington. Now she lives in her beloved mountains and travels to Washington occasionally to see clients.

Another woman grew up outside New York. She got married and moved to Oregon and spent most of her 20s and 30s around Portland. Eventually she got divorced and moved first to California, then Arizona, with a year-long stint in Alaska. But when she retired, she felt the pull of Portland, where she still had friends. To her, that was home. And that's where she moved.

No matter where you end up in retirement, remember that relationships are more important than the weather. The warmest climate can be found amidst the safety and security of family and friends.

Read More..

Sexual Activity Deemed Safe for Many Heart Patients by AHA

 The American Heart Association  has released its first scientifically based statement with recommendations for sexual activity for people with heart conditions or cardiovascular disease. The good news for many with heart problems is that sex is safe.

AHA Scientific Statement on Sex and Cardiovascular Disease

For many heart patients, if they are able to walk briskly or climb two flights of stairs without experiencing chest pain, abnormal heartbeats, or shortness of breath, a normal sex life is possible -- after discussing it with their heart doctor, advises the AHA Scientific statement.

In an interview with HeartWire, lead author of the study underlying the AHA Statement on Sex, Dr. Glenn N. Levine of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, explained that not only are these recommendations about sexual activity and heart disease the most comprehensive to date, but also have been compiled and endorsed by experts in a variety of fields including urology, exercise physiology and sexual counseling in addition to cardiologists.

There are many people who, once diagnosed with a heart condition or who have experienced a heart attack, abstain from sexual activity due to fear that engaging in sex could result in a heart attack or death. Levine, via HeartWire, explained that many heart patients -- and their physicians -- are reluctant to address the topic of sexual activity. The AHA Statement on Sex provides guidelines for safe sexual activity not only for cardiologists, but also general practitioners and physicians in other fields.

Facts on Sex and Heart Health/Safety

According to the AHA Statement on Sex, less than 1 percent of heart attacks are caused by sexual activity, with this risk being even lower for heart patients who are physically active. Among that 1 percent, the largest number of heart attacks experienced were among people involved in extramarital sex.

Following a heart attack or coronary bypass surgery, your physician should advise a certain waiting period before beginning to have sex again. He may also advise that you first increase your overall physical health and endurance through recommended exercise programs and recommend an exercise stress test before resuming sexual activity, recommends the AHA Statement on Sex. People with heart conditions should avoid eating a heavy meal or drinking alcohol before sexual activity as well.

Read More..

Need to Exercise More? Think How It Will Help You Now

FRIDAY, Jan. 13 (HealthDay News) -- Health and fitness experts have for years tried to entice people to exercise more by flogging long-range benefits such as losing weight or avoiding long-term illness caused by chronic disease.

They might have been going about it all wrong. Research now appears to show that "improve your heart health" may be a less effective message than "feel better now."

A University of Michigan study found that people are more apt to exercise when they're given reasons that apply to their immediate, day-to-day life. For example, telling someone they will have more energy after working out seems to be a more effective motivation than telling them they will be less likely to develop diabetes.

Michelle Segar, the study's lead author, said she believes the results indicate a need to "rebrand" exercise so that health organizations that promote exercise will see better results from their efforts.

"We need to develop new messaging that teaches people that physical activity is a way to reduce their stress in the moment, feel better in the moment, create more energy in the moment," said Segar, a research investigator with the Institute for Research on Women and Gender at the University of Michigan. "You're a more patient parent. You enjoy your work more. You don't snap at your spouse as much. The benefits of exercise help you lead a more pleasant and productive life. The messaging needs to go there."

The study focused on a randomly selected set of 385 women, 40 to 60 years old, who were given several questionnaires over the course of a year related to exercise and health.

The women's responses indicated that they valued long-term goals like weight loss as much as short-term goals more directly linked to day-to-day quality of life, such as stress reduction. Nonetheless, Segar and her team found that women who cited short-term factors exercised more often than those who felt long-term goals were most important.

"The women who exercised for quality of life did significantly more exercise than the other two groups," Segar said. Those who exercised based on daily quality of life worked out 15 percent to 34 percent more often, the study found.

This argues strongly for a reassessment of how exercise is promoted, Segar said.

"Health and healthy aging are very abstract," she said. "We may endorse them as important, but the problem lies in the fact that we live very busy, complicated lives. When you're looking at your daily to-do list, how compelling is fitting in exercise for a reason that's far in the future, where you might never notice? If you're exercising to enhance the quality of your daily life because it reduces your stress or improves your mood, you notice those things immediately. And if you don't exercise, you immediately notice you feel worse."

Messages that might resonate better with people who need to exercise more often, she said, include that exercise is a way to:

    * Become a more pleasant member of your family by feeling better.
    * Improve your productivity at work because working out makes your mind more focused.
    * Relieve day-to-day stress.
    * Improve your mood.
    * Enjoy higher levels of energy and vitality.
    * Spend more social time with others.
    * Take time to enjoy the outdoors.

Though those are compelling arguments for exercise, groups might want to think twice before removing long-term goals from their marketing strategies, said Walter Thompson, a professor of exercise science in the department of kinesiology and health at Georgia State University and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine.

Long-term goals like weight loss tend to be measurable, whereas short-term goals like improved energy are largely subjective, Thompson said.

"The problem with the long-term goal is they can get to the 5½-months point and not lose a pound," he said. "That's the argument for the short-term goal. But without a long-term goal, it's hard to come up with short-term goals."

Short-term goals also might not apply to everyone because they're subjective, he added.

"I like to run, but I remember days when I just felt miserable after my run," Thompson said. "If I only looked at short-term goals, if I felt bad one day, I may not do it the second day."

Read More..

Belfast rally demands return of British flag

BELFAST (Reuters) - Around 2,000 pro-British loyalists rallied in central Belfast on Saturday for the return of the British flag to the roof of city hall after a vote by Irish nationalist councilors to remove it sparked a week of rioting.

Twenty-eight police officers have been injured in the most widespread pro-British street violence for years in the province as the flag became a rallying point for people who feel there have been too many concessions to Irish nationalists.

Rioters fired bricks and petrol bombs at police and burned out cars overnight, hours after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for calm during a visit to the city and warned the peace process was not yet complete.

Loyalist political parties, who share the protesters' desire to remain part of the United Kingdom, condemned the rioting as did the Irish nationalist parties who they share power with.

Around 2,000 people gathered outside the imposing 19th century Baroque city hall, most waving British flags and many hiding their faces with balaclavas or scarves, prompting some local businesses in the area to close.

'NO SURRENDER'

The crowd cheered when one protester burned an Irish tricolour flag and sang the British national anthem before dispersing. Banners declared "Proud to be British" and "No Surrender."

"This goes on until the flag is back above city hall," said protester William Arthur. "Ulster is British and we will not stand for this".

Hundreds of riot police stood by, but did not intervene.

One police officer was injured during trouble in East Belfast as some of the crowd returned home, police said.

Assistant Chief Constable Will Kerr of the Senior Police Service of Northern Ireland said the disorder orchestrated by loyalist paramilitary groups was putting lives at risk.

"I am urging everyone to be calm, take a step back," he said.

LOYALIST FEARS

At least 3,600 people were killed over three decades as Catholic nationalists seeking union with Ireland fought British security forces and mainly Protestant loyalists determined to remain part of the United Kingdom.

A 1998 peace accord has mostly held, although militant nationalists have stepped up attacks in recent years and community relations remain fragile, with riots erupting every few months.

Monday's council decision means the British flag will be flown over city hall on 17 designated days including public holidays each year, as is the case at the provincial assembly at Stormont in the British-controlled province.

Until then, it had flown above the provincial capital's city hall every day since it opened a century ago, a symbol for many Catholic nationalists of Protestant domination.

Its removal has turned the tables, sparking fears of growing nationalist power.

"It's not just that the flag has come down, loyalists really sense that everything is about concessions," said Peter Shirlow, professor of conflict transformation at Queen's University. "Rightly or wrongly they sense that this is a one way process."

The violence, he said, was a sign that while loyalist paramilitaries have not in the past reacted violently to killings by dissident Irish nationalists, they may in future.

"It's a sign that it's getting harder to maintain the peace process within loyalism," he said. "Whether that breaks down is a different matter, but I think it's harder to hold the line."

Read More..

U.S. trade-human rights link tests Obama-Russia ties

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate's passage of legislation to punish Russians who violate human rights is the first big test of the resolve of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama to improve relations since their election victories.

Obama, who launched a "reset" in relations with Russia less than four years ago, is likely to sign the law even though Moscow sees it as "aggressively unfriendly." Damage to U.S.-Russian relations is all but inevitable.

But there are signs that Putin, who won the presidency despite the biggest protests of his 13-year rule, may want to put the bad blood of a campaign in which he whipped up anti-American sentiment behind him.

"I do not think that this will lead to a serious crisis in Russian-American relations," said Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre think tank.

"(Putin) does not intend to make relations worse, and for this reason the effects of this legislation will be limited," Trenin said.

The Senate approved the "Magnitsky Act" as part of a broader bill to lift a Cold War-era restriction and grant Russia "permanent normal trade relations, " or PNTR, a move that in other circumstances would have been celebrated in both capitals.

A month after Obama's re-election, it could have been the cap on a period during which he signed a landmark nuclear arms deal with Moscow and helped usher Russia into the World Trade Organization after an 18-year membership bid.

Instead, Moscow is furious over the human rights portion of the bill, an unmistakable message to Putin of displeasure with the treatment of Russians who dare challenge the authorities.

The main targets are those allegedly involved in the abuse and death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who died in jail in 2009 - the victim, colleagues say, of retribution from the same investigators he claimed stole $230 million from the state.

In a Foreign Ministry statement full of righteous anger, Russia called the Senate vote a "performance in the theatre of the absurd" and said the bill would badly cloud the prospects for cooperation between Moscow and Washington.

How big the impact will be is largely up to Putin.

The law injects a dose of poison into a relationship strained by the crisis in Syria and U.S. concerns about the direction Putin has taken since he revealed last year that he would return to the Kremlin after a stint as prime minister.

"It will have a negative impact on the atmosphere, that's for sure," said Samuel Charap, senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington.

The bill directs Obama to publish the names of Russians allegedly involved in the abuse and death of Magnitsky, who was jailed in 2008 on tax evasion and fraud charges colleagues say were fabricated by investigators against whom he had given evidence.

Magnitsky, 37, said he was deliberately deprived of the treatment he needed as his health deteriorated painfully in jail, and the Kremlin's own human rights council has said he was probably beaten to death.

The bill would also require the United States to deny visas and freeze the assets of any of those individuals, as well as other human rights violators in Russia not linked to Magnitsky, on a continuing basis.

It is, at least in Russian eyes, almost a textbook example of what Putin dislikes most about the United States: its perceived use of human rights concerns as a geopolitical instrument and the resort to sanctions for punishment.

In a decree signed hours after his inauguration to a six-year third term in May, Putin said he wanted "truly strategic" ties with the United States but they must be based on equality, non-interference and respect for one another's interests.

MUTUAL DOUBTS

Trenin said the law would reinforce Putin's wariness about U.S. intentions, but that he may also want to focus on his long-stated goal of improving economic ties with the United States.

Russia has sought to reassure Americans that Moscow's response to the bill would not affect business dealings.

But late on Friday, Russia imposed restrictions on meat imports from several countries, chief among them the United States, denying the move was a political retribution for the "Magnitsky Act".

In a joint statement on Saturday, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Russia's new requirement for imported beef and pork to be certified free of ractopamine, a feed additive used in the U.S. meat industry but banned in some other countries, appeared to be a violation of Moscow's WTO obligations.

"The United States calls on Russia to suspend these new measures and restore market access for U.S. beef and pork products," Kirk and Vilsack said.

"The United States sought, and Russia committed as part of its WTO accession package, to ensure that it adhere rigorously to WTO requirements and that it would use international (food safety) standards unless it had a risk assessment to justify use of a more stringent standard," they said.

On Saturday, the daily Kommersant reported that the passage of the legislation may freeze the work of some of the 20-plus groups that are part of the bilateral presidential commission set up between Obama and former President Dmitry Medvedev.

The Magnitsky Act is the flip side of the bill to grant Russia PNTR status, which both sides hope, along with Russia's WTO membership, will bolster bilateral trade, which amounted to a paltry $43 billion last year.

"There's a lot that can be done on that, and that is stuff he understands and cares about," Charap said of Putin.

Russia has threatened to retaliate if Obama signs the bill into law. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday that Russia would bar entry for Americans "guilty of crude human rights abuses."

Moscow has also warned it would respond with "asymmetrical" measures, seeming to hint the bill could have a spillover effect into broader areas in which the United States wants Russian cooperation most, such as nuclear arms control and Iran.

But analysts said that was unlikely. They said the law would probably not derail Russian assistance on Afghanistan, or affect diplomacy aimed to curb Iran's nuclear program or deepen disputes over U.S. missile defense and the conflict in Syria.

"It will have a mostly symbolic effect," said Yevgeny Volk, a Russian political analyst.

Read More..