some have say that billy west film a a suspiciously little tramp like character be more enjoyable if the viewer doesn not compare them to chaplin film . i find that very hard to do and and i think that the fact that west spend the entire short try to look and act as much like chaplin character a he can invite a certain amount of comparison to say the least . west have the look down and certainly and and he do a good job of ape chaplin mannerism and but his performance just doesn not have the subtlety and and it broad similarity to chaplin only make it shortcoming more noticeable . the film itself have some funny moment at the lunch counter and in the confusion of car but be mainly a jumble of gag that seem to have no rhyme or reason behind them and and a a consequence and fall flat . nobody really know why the hobo end up chaotically run the train station breakfast counter . on a small level and nobody know why he throw milk over his shoulder into a customer face or why he take so long preparing for his own meal after he wake up . these sequence do not work because there no logic or character behind the comedy . likewise the broad slapstick that can work when it be motivate be just empty kicking and food throwing here . the young oliver hardy have a role here and do a good job and though his main task be to eat copious amount . this be mean to be funny also but quickly grow old . youre probably not a theatre owner in 1917 who want to fool audience into think they be really see charlie chaplin while it probably more worthwhile to watch the real thing . this be mainly of interest a an early hardy performance and to see how chaplin act be rip off wholesale at this time .