Some have said that Billy West's films as a suspiciously Little Tramp-like character are more enjoyable if the viewer doesn't compare them to Chaplin's films. I find that very hard to do, and I think that the fact that West spends the entire short trying to look and act as much like Chaplin's character as he can invites a certain amount of comparison -- to say the least.<br /><br />West has the look down, certainly, and he does a good job of aping Chaplin's mannerisms, but his performance just doesn't have the subtlety, and it's broad similarity to Chaplin's only makes its shortcomings more noticeable.<br /><br />The film itself has some funny moments -- at the lunch counter, in the confusion of cars -- but is mainly a jumble of gags that seem to have no rhyme or reason behind them and, as a consequence, fall flat. Nobody really knows why the Hobo ends up chaotically running the train station breakfast counter. On a small level, nobody knows why he throws milk over his shoulder into a customer's face or why he takes so long preparing for his own meal after he wakes up. These sequences don't work because there's no logic or character behind the comedy. Likewise the broad slapstick that can work when it is motivated is just empty kicking and food-throwing here.<br /><br />The young Oliver Hardy has a role here and does a good job, though his main task is to eat copious amounts. This is meant to be funny also but quickly grows old.<br /><br />You're probably not a theatre owner in 1917 who wants to fool audiences into thinking they are really seeing Charlie Chaplin; it's probably more worthwhile to watch the real thing. This is mainly of interest as an early Hardy performance and to see how Chaplin's act was ripped off wholesale at this time.