The movie, an over-the-top retelling of World War II featuring a squad of Jewish Nazi hunters, brought in $37 million at the box office this weekend, which is about $10 million more than the Hollywood prognostication machine expected.

In the old days, you’d simply chalk up the difference to the fact that the Hollywood prognostication machine sometimes gets things wrong. But now when this happens, the impulse is to blame or praise Twitter. The theory: Audiences go to see the movie on Friday, then quickly tweet their 140-character reviews to their pals. This either keeps moviegoers away for the rest of the weekend or makes them flock to the theaters.

All of this sounds believable enough, but I have yet to see anyone spell out exactly how it works. The Hollywood Reporter, for instance, is a big proponent of the “Twitter saved Tarantino” theory. But its evidence is awfully weak: It just notes that some Twitter messages about the film have been positive.

At least NewTeeVee tries to put some numbers behind the argument. Using data from tracking service Trendrr, it notes that the volume of Tweets about the film increased over the weekend (see chart; click to enlarge).

Of course, volume alone doesn’t indicate anything: For all we know the messages were fixated on the mustache Brad Pitt’s character sports in the film. And in any case, we’re a long way from correlating Internet messages with real-world actions–just ask former presidential candidate Ron Paul’s ardent cyberfans.

But marketing always involves at least an equal part art for every part science, and when you add a superhyped, very new phenomenon like Twitter to the mix, all bets are off. Given the way these things work, expect Hollywood to assume that Twitter can now make or break a movie. And there will be an opportunistic flock of “social media” gurus ready to assure them–for just a small monthly retainer–that their insight is correct.

In case you haven’t seen it (left unmentioned in these reports is the fact that the movie got a very big conventional marketing push), here is an “Inglourious Basterds” trailer. And below that, one of my favorite scenes from “Pulp Fiction,” Tarantino’s 1994 breakthrough. (Be warned! These are Tarantino movies, and the second clip is unedited, which means you’re going to get some potentially NSFW cursing and gore. Enjoy!)

It’s no surprise, obviously, that financial advertising has slowed down in the first three quarters of 2008. The surprise is that it’s only been a 10 percent reduction (so far), according to Nielsen.

There are also some interesting breakdowns: Mortgage and loan companies spent 62 percent less (of course). But credit service companies increased their spend by 22 percent, and investment service companies boosted their spend by six percent.

Here’s Nielsen’s list of top 10 financial advertisers (click chart to enlarge): Note that Bank Of America (BAC), one of the comparative winners during the meltdown, has cut its spend by 30 percent so far this year–slightly more than teetering Citigroup’s (C) 26.5 percent cut. Previously left-for-dead ETrade (ETFC), meanwhile, bumped up its spend by 24.5 percent.

Want more unpleasantness? OK. Comes now yet another ad executive to tell you that next year will be very unpleasant for anyone looking to make a living off of advertising revenue.

U.S. advertising spending will drop 5-8 percent next year, says Steve Lanzano, chief operating officer of MPG North America, a unit of French advertising conglomerate Havas SA. Lanzano predicts that sports advertising, long considered one of the most impervious to downturns, will get roughed up as well:

Even television sports, which have become more popular with advertisers since audiences tend to watch the events live rather than recording them, will suffer from the broad pullback in marketing spending, said Lanzano.

Lanzano estimated 9 to 10 percent of spending on broadcast sports comes from financial services and automotive, both industries that have been in turmoil. ‘That’s a lot of money moving out,’ said Lanzano.

‘Because of the hits in the categories that support sports–whether it’s financial or automotive or retail–I think they might take a little more of a hit than they would in other recessionary periods,’ he said.”

OK. Let’s break the glumness up a bit, shall we? If you’re looking for a cheap laugh, head to the Hollywood Reporter’s take on the Nielsen numbers. Then feast your eyes on the unintentional, yet very successful contextual advertising placed to the right of the story (which is where I borrowed the image currently at the top of this story).