If this is lacking a “real” bond girl, whatever that means, and a load of explosions, I may go and see it.
As long as it doesn’t have half the movie set in a frickin’ poker game, it hopefully won’t be as bad as the last.

From that perspective, I can imagine that if one expects it one might be disappointed. Fortunately having read all this before going to see it, I couldn’t possibly be disappointed.

Perhaps you are correct regarding your second point, but the film was remarkably dry (in my opinion). Again, it was my expectation to see action and, as you put it, “gratuitous sex” - and perhaps this led to my disappointment. It was simply not what I personally expected from a Bond film, your mileage may, of course, vary.

According to whom? Is this a written law somewhere or just the implicit rule of what has gone before?

“Another somewhat lacking feature was that there was no real Bond girl, no wild sex scenes, and most importantly no romantic ending.”

I hate to say it, but you give the impression that the worst thing about the film in your opinion was a lack of blind action and a lack of gratuitous sex: the two things that I feel are becoming horrifically template in the film industry these days. I haven’t seen QoS yet (and I have seen so many negative reviews that I doubt I’ll find it enthralling) but even so I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be refreshing to see a film that doesn’t require explosions and naked women to make it work.