There were plenty of other people who could have helped that guy back into his wheelchair

 The Dark Tower - Yeah, I don't know what that was.
It starts well by quoting the opening narration of the 1984 Masters Of The Universe movie - "there is a tower at the center of the universe" and so on - but then goes all meta by saying "the mind of a child can bring it down", which after watching the film I take to mean that The Dark Tower is so flimsy that even a child can poke holes in it until it collapses - which is exactly what happens over the course of the film, as kids are used to literally poke holes in The Dark Tower.
Is it fantasy?  Science fiction?  What is the motivation of the villain?  Why does it look so cheap?  He's a sorcerer but his big plan is a science laser?  Why doesn't he just use magic?  We clearly see him blowing chunks off the Tower, so why doesn't he just keep doing that until it falls down rather than looking for an extra powerful battery to make an even bigger laser bullet that will kill the tower in one shot?  Where is this science coming from?  We only ever see ruined post-civilised worlds, so where is he getting his technology and scientists?  None of this makes any sense.
It reminds me of Super Dimensional Fortress Macross and how it was repackaged as Robotech in America: SDFM had a McGuffin called "Protoculture", which was the concept of non-terrestrial civilisation predating humanity and which was cited as a conceptual barometer of the human species' capacity for higher technological and philosophical states (can we achieve the same level as protoculture?" type of thing), but in the rewritten US version of the show, Protoculture was a power source a bit like Energon Cubes that could be used to make lasers and "control the universe".  That kind of pigshit-thick interpretation of the source material is basically what I think I'm looking at in The Dark Tower, which is so remarkably lacking in any interesting characters or ideas that I am now convinced that the studio started the race-swapping debate about the casting of Dris as The Gunslinger just to obscure what a load of shite this film is - you know, like they did with the Ghostbusters remake, and Spider-Man: Homecoming.  Yes, all these race/gender-swapping furores around products from the same studio - that's a bit of a coincidence, isn't it?  And a studio we already know from an infamous hack to be institutionally racist and misogynistic at the highest levels, making their sudden turn as posterboys for multiculturalism and gender diversity more than a little unconvincing.
I'll credit them that baiting racists in order to use them as a pretext to dismiss criticism of a boring and glaringly flawed film was actually a clever marketing strategy and probably the best thing about The Dark Tower, but perhaps emboldening racists and further bringing racism back into the mainstream might not be something we should do.  Maybe instead of upping our deflecting criticism game we should make better art?  Just floating that out there, Sony.

I've said nicer things, you were just too drunk to remember them

Is there like a new sub-genre in movies where black people's lives in historical periods are observed by privileged honkies?  If so, then Mr Church is an addition to the canon, charting as it does the intersection between the titular African-American man of mystery and the honky women of the Brooks family, whom for some reason he serves for three generations after being hired to care for the terminally-ill ex-mistress of a departed rich dude for what will likely be six months but which turns into six years, paying for the woman's daughter's college education, and then raising that girl and her illegitimate daughter in his own home.  It's a bit of a mess of a story and some of the twists of fate and monologues are insultingly contrived to the point that a woman with terminal cancer telling you about the important things in life just made me angry rather than punched me right between the Feels like you would hope it would, but it's a well-performed film - especially Eddie Murphy in the title role - I just wish all involved had a bit more to work with.
The one thing that did really annoy me is that at the end of the film - SPOILERS - the lead female (because why would a black man be the lead in a story that's named for him even in 2017?) is hosting Mr Church's wake and meets one of his acquaintances - the proprietor of a nightclub Mr Church frequented over the course of the film and from which he often returned drunken and bitterly rambling at the memory of his (presumably) departed father.  The two exchange tidbits about Mr Church and the lead female delightedly notes that Mr Church was a whiz on the old piano and that he brought the nightclub to life each night, and it's treated as a wonderful snippet as she sits down to type out her life story and all I'm thinking is "How is this an amusing vignette?  We saw how unhappy he was throughout the film, clearly this activity did not bring him joy or make him happy and he died after a life of bitter regrets which haunted him to the grave."  But no, Hollywood gonna Hollywood, and the film ends with a blonde honky being handed the man's house where she's been freeloading for at least the last decade and cashing in on his dang life story.  This is a really mixed message of an ending, or possibly I just should not be watching weepies.