History has shown us that the progression of science isn't made by giants standing on the shoulders of giants as much as midgets standing on the toes of midgets.
Newtons, Einsteins and the like don't come along too often. And 99.9% of anything too new (as you put it) is likely also wrong. And when something too new does manage to pass through the filter and (god forbid) become fashionable we're in serious trouble. Just take a look at String "Theory" decades of work by arguably some of the best brains in the world and absolutely nothing significant to show for it.
Now, don't get me wrong. The review process is far from perfect, and just the reviewer selection process can have a lot of influence (at least until an automatic method is adopted say, like http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0605112). However, I don't think making the reviews public would improve anything. In fact, it would probably make it worse by conditioning (directly or indirectly) your career progression by the "yes-man" reviews you give. The reason reviewers are anonymous is to prevent undo pressure from being exerted on them, and to give them the privacy necessary for them to be completely honest.