Surely a remake and a reboot are different things?
You can remake an old stand-alone movie. A reboot surely has to apply to a franchise, a sequence of sequels that have lost their way?
The Fly was a remake, which led to a sequel to the remake. It wasn't a reboot because there was never a franchise in the first place, just the one movie. I think.
I'm sure there have been lots of excellent remakes (definitely there are cases where the remake is the far more famous and acclaimed version), but I can't think of any right now because my brain needs a reboot.
I'd suggest Carpenter's The Thing but that technically maybe wasn't a remake as it was a new attempt to film the original short story and didn't really have anything to do with the first version. And then the later prequel was, well, a prequel even if it might as well have been a sort of remake.
Asking about the best 'reboot' is surely looking at a pretty small number of contenders, not a lot of movies have spawned sequels that became a franchise that then got restarted again. I can't think of one where the rebooted one was better than the original. If the original hadn't at least started well it would never have become a series of sequels in the first place.