What should a PhD student do when he receives no feedback on his work except some reviews on his papers?
My first reaction is: why do you need a smack in the face? Research education aims to educate PhD students to become independent researchers able to perform research, publish it, write applications for new research supervise new PhD students etc. Once you pass the PhD defence the only smack in the face you get is when your papers are rejected, your funding application is rejected etc. Towards the end of a PhD it is normal that your knowledge in your topic stretches farther than that of your advisor. From this perspective, a smack in the face is not the most obvious test of your progress.

I can understand if you feel you do not receive feedback on your work. In an ideal situation you should be able to discuss your science and use such feedback to improve. Your advisor should be able to read your manuscripts and provide feedback and suggestions on how to improve it before publication (or if your write a monograph, before you defend). Now all advisor-students relationships are different since we deal with personalities. To some extent one need to adapt and find ones own way in that relationship, I know this from my own experience.

So although your situation is perhaps not ideal, it does not sound as it is truly problematic. It sounds like you get more feedback than you can expect after your PhD. If you need specific feedback on any part of the research process, you should look around to see if any other persons can provide such. For PhD students getting papers past peer review is the hardest hurdle to cross and as such the sign of the worth of your research. Most advisors try to help students reach this level so the worst smack in the face they consider is the dreaded rejection. If you get your material past peer review, you are really doing (perhaps more than) fine.