The films of Stanley Kubrick are famous for dividing critics, audiences, nations, and (in this case) movie gurus—which is good, because not too many movies these days inspire debate. Although I might be damning with faint praise, there were far more elements in Eyes Wide Shut that I liked than ones I disliked. While it is indeed a film with flaws, I think many of Mr. Weisfeld's specific charges are largely misplaced, based on misconceptions of what Kubrick's intentions were.
First, I don't think Kubrick was trying to create a perfect image of reality here; "dreamlike" seems like a more apt description of the Eyes Wide Shut mise en scène. Yes, Kubrick's New York isn't as noisy or populous as the real thing—so what? He was trying to create a mood of alienation and disorientation as Bill Harford wanders the streets in a daze, not one of complete urban reality (which would have defeated the scene's intent).
Second, while orgies today aren't a big deal per se, one supposedly populated by politicians, business leaders, etc. would require secrecy. Regardless, I don't believe Kubrick's intention here was to make an underworld exposé; it was to show the power of sex over people's lives in a very artsy (and sometimes silly) way. Yes, the dozens of naked women were props—just as they would be in such a setting. And, no, they weren't especially erotic—what makes you think Kubrick intended them to be?
Third, I don't think the AIDS line was meant to show us how gritty the hooking life can be—it was to suddenly spike Bill's ardor with a deflating dose of reality: casual sex can have repercussions. In the drama biz, this is called "foreshadowing."
When it comes to Kubrick's films, it doesn't help to watch them as a literalist. As for whether Eyes Wide Shut is a fitting coda for Kubrick's career, ask me in 10 years.