How can a film this bad be financed?

Rating: 1/10 (2 September 2018)

I was delighted when I finally tracked down a Bluray version of Dunkirk: it is a movie I had been waiting to see since it was released.
What a disappointment: no, disappointment is too weak a word. Disgust is more appropriate. Disgust with myself for being taken in by the professional reviews and especially for wasting 1hr 46m of my life.
The cinematography is superb - some of the best I have seen. There - that's it: everything else is truly awful.
The dialogue is barely understandable. The background music - why have background music anyway? - is unremittingly dreary, banal and mindbendingly tedious. Much of the acting could have been panned by an audience at the village amateur dramatic pantomime.
The only reason I could thing of that the discombobulated storyline - if indeed there is one - is so was an intention to display the disorientation and terror war produces. It doesn't actually do this: the total lack of narrative in any meaningful sense firstly irritates and then engenders a fury at the waste of time and money represented by making this monstrosity.
Because of the way the film has been envisaged and constructed, without any character development I found I had absolutely no connection with the people in it, and no empathy either. Nolan may have wanted to show various soldiers in the same situation, but as a plan it just doesn't work.
Comic relief is provided at times: a spitfire with a dead prop glides at various heights for an eternity, even with flaps down. Bullet holes appear in the hull of the ship in groupings that would win medals in the local firing range.Branagh displays several varieties of facial rictus straight out of Python. And so on.
And NOTHING - not even a mention - of the War office decision making, the on-the-fly planning and logistics which made the Dunkirk rescue of much of the army a "success".
You may ask - so what did I really think about this movie?