I know, they're so much alike, before I had found out both were written by the same guy I figured they had to be. Though there is a bit of difference, for one thing, no goal of a big insurance payout here. Also, toward the end, Cora seems somewhat repentent and willing to die for what she's done, Phyllis seemed to be dead set on taking no chances and being the last one standing.
shareWell, one of them is funny and clever and witty and sexy and entertaining, and the other one is The Postman Always Rings Twice.
shareSpectacular answer.
Double Indemnity will be remembered fifty years from now, The Postman Always Rings Twice will not.
That's because the screenplay for one was written by Billy Wilder, and the other wasn't
shareI think they're different in the sense that Cora from this film is not quite as devilish as Phyllis was in Double Indemnity; as another poster mentioned, Phyllis was more interested in being the "last one standing" in spite of the guilt she carried. Phyllis turned on Walter at the end of Double Indemnity, whereas Cora fell victim to an accidental death that was pinned on Frank as an intentional murder.
shareYeah I agree with this. Though Cora loved Frank, she really didn't want to kill Nick. For sure when Nick got hurt, she was glad he didn't die. It was when Nick announced he and Cora were going to Canada, she figured killing him was the only way out (which it was). If she hadn't been killed there is little doubt she and Frank would have had a great life and business together, perhaps children.
Phyllis wanted to kill her husband from the start; we don't know if she really ever loved Walter or was just using him like she said in her last scene. She used everyone, including Nino. Even if she and Walter had gotten away with the crime and she got the money, she would have never married Walter, she would have brushed him off and perhaps had him killed (by Nino?).