InceptionPeter Travers over at Rolling Stone has the first published review of Inception. Whether or not he "broke" the embargo or if it was with permission from Warner Bros., what it means to sign an embargo and then see other people break it and whether or not that means it's then a free for all for everyone else, and lots of other questions surrounding these types of issues are a sort of inside baseball discussion that's not necessarily as interesting for you, the reader, as it is for writers and editors who have to actually sign embargoes.

I'd find it hard to believe that he broke the embargo without explicit permission and without foreknowledge that it would be positive (check a poster of almost any major studio release and look for Travers' quote -- you'll find a lot of 'em) and that it will be a huge boost to Rolling Stone's numbers at the newsstands to boot. If you'd like to read an excerpt of his review, it's thoughtfully typed out from the print version on stands now here at the New York Post.

The most pertinent part of Travers' review, to me at least, is, "Of course, trusting the intelligence of the audience can cost Nolan at the box office. We're so used to being treated like idiots. How to cope with a grand-scale epic, shot in six countries at a reported cost of $160 million, that turns your head around six ways from Sunday? Dive in and drive yourself crazy, that's how.''

NYP writer Lou Lumenick wonders if this means Inception "may play be too smart to rack up numbers anything like The Dark Knight."