I’m aware of A Gentleman in Moscow and I think the premise has promise, although it’s not on my radar to watch soon.
I’m of two minds when it comes to historical fiction. I like the historical aspects, of course, and I’m always assessing how true to life the presentation is. But I’m invariably disappointed because there always seems to be some B story that overshadows the events that I am interested in, e.g., “Love in the time of the Russian Revolution.” In that way, it almost seems like bait and switch. They hook me in with an intriguing historical premise only to disappoint me with a pedestrian B story that could have taken place in literally any other setting. (Honestly, I have no idea whether that is what “Gentleman in Moscow” is. It just happens to be proximal grounds for my example.)
I think the historical fiction I like best is about ordinary people who live through extraordinary times and how they deal with it, as long as the events swirling around them are true to history, and the focus is on their interaction with the events and not some personal story unrelated to them. I’m far less enamored of the kind of historical fiction that weaves fictional characters into the actual events themselves, particularly when they interact with real historical figures. That strikes as more indicative of what’s going on in the creator’s mind than in what actually went on in history, and I’m not a fan of people just making up stuff that comports poorly with reality.