D-

Wet ‘n’ Wild Limited Edition Summer 2014 Eyeshadow Trio in Lost My Wristband Review + Swatches

Picture 95

This is the last of three trios I have from Wet ‘n’ Wild’s 2014 summer collection, which was inspired by the scene at music festivals. I have to say, I had such I high hopes for these, especially Lost My Wristband, but sadly, none of them performed quite as well as I wished.

Color:
Of the three I picked up, this one was exciting because of the vibrant looking pastels. However, when I swatched them, they’re all so sheer. What looks like a bright grass green, sunshine yellow, and strawberry ice cream in the pan are actually sheer powders. The green had the most pigment, and could be built up a little, but only to semi-opacity. The yellow was practically invisible even with primer, and the pink, which was meant to be a sheer highlight to begin with, didn’t have a ton of opacity. On top of it, none of these colors are sensationally rare, so I’m sure better quality, more opaque dupes are out there. (2/5)

Wear:
Not only was this trio weak in pigment, the wear time wasn’t phenomenal either. Even with primer, the shadows just didn’t hold up. The pink was faded after only 3 hours, the yellow was gone completely at 4 hours, and the green was a little faded at the 7 hour mark. (2.5/5)

Formula:
All three shadows have a pretty soft feel to the touch, but that translates to some notable powder kickup when a brush is used. I didn’t have any issues with fallout, though. The poor pigment and weak longevity really take this score down, though. (3/5)

Packaging:
The packaging is pretty standard for WnW trios: a rectangular plastic compact with a clear lid, unnamed shades, and ingredients/directions on the back. I like that these limited edition versions have white packaging instead of the usual black compact, though. Details like that always make a limited release feel more special to me. The packaging is lightweight and small/thin, so it’s easy to store, but I have trouble with these staying closed occasionally–don’t count on it making it through a trip without some wear and tear. (4/5)

Picture 171

Price:
Like all WnW products, this trio was very affordable at $2.99 USD. But this part of the score always weighs the quality you get as well–the “bang for your buck.” Sure, it’s inexpensive, but the quality is just not there. You can find these shades anywhere else for better quality at a similar price, even from within WnW’s own line. (2/5)

Wow Factor:
Like the other items I tried from the summer collection, Lost My Wristband definitely left an impression, but in a negative way. The pigment and staying power were just so disappointing. (2/5)

Overall:
The colors look so lovely in the pan, and they’re not horrible. But they definitely need primer to be workable. I don’t see these working well on many skintones (the pastel hues + chalkiness), or for many functions (definitely not a work palette). But a girl who wants something softer for spring/summer or wants to experiment with color without going too bold could find a way to work it into a look. But by and large, it’s not for me, and don’t recommend it to those who love bold, rich colors. 2.6 (D+)

Availability:
-Drugstores

Useful Information:
-This product was purchased by me.
-Wet ‘n’ Wild and it’s parent company are completely cruelty-free and mostly vegan.
-All three shades in Lost My Wristband are matte, so there’s no texture diversity.
-This palette is limited edition, so get it while you can!

Picture 173

Advertisements

L.A. Colors 5 Color Metallic Eyeshadow Palette in Wildflowers Review + Swatches

LA Colors is a brand I haven’t really tried before, but it seems like lately they’ve been having a surge of popularity on Youtube. A couple years ago, my mother gifted me this palette, so I dug it up a couple months ago and decided to test it out. My mother is not one to spend more than a bargain on cosmetics, so I was not expecting superior quality from this palette. Unfortunately, my prediction was spot on.
Color:
Wildflowers comes with five unnamed shades. From left to right, the palette includes a light yellow gold, a darker, richer tan gold, a hot pink (looks orange on camera, but in life, it’s unmistakably pink), a raspberry wine, and a pinky violet. All of these shades lean warm. 
Shade 1 is semi sheer and makes for a great highlight shade on the brow. Urban Decay Maui Wowie is lighter, more opaque, and more shimmery. Shiro Perfect World is darker, warmer, and more shimmery.
Shade 2 was a little hard to detect on my fair skin, but went on pretty opaque and the intensity could be built up a little.
Shade 3 looks opaque and extra frosty when used with a primer. However, it has a major fallout problem whether or not a primer is used, and has zero staying power. By the time I finished applying my makeup, this had looked faded and the metallic sheen wore off, even with a good base. 
Shade 4 went on pretty opaque. Despite it’s dry feel when swatched, it didn’t have a patchy application. It’s not 100% opaque though, even with a base. With primer, the pinky tones come out more as well.

Shade 5 is a grape violet when swatched, but doesn’t look any different than shade 4 on the lid, even with a base.

Unfortunately the pigmentation and uniqueness in these shades are really lacking. Even in the pan, the two golds aren’t that different from each other, and on the eye, it’s almost impossible to tell the purples apart. The pink and purples create a really unflattering look, reminiscent of an eye infection, that I can only see working for an ’80s themed party or cosplay. (2/5)

Wear:
I wish I could say these shadows wore better than they looked, but that would be a lie. Shade 5 was completely gone in an hour (with and without a base), the wine shade was gone by hour 2 and the pink shade was just a tinge over primer at this point. The two gold shades were holding on at 3 hours, but by the 4-hour mark I had bare lids (Shade 4 stained a bit when a base wasn’t used). This is some of the least impressive wear I’ve seen from eyeshadows, and this was with primer. (2/5)

Formula:
While the palette touts all these as metallic, the feel of the shadows is pretty inconsistent. The two shades on the right feel dry, the two on the left are pretty soft and smooth feeling, and the pink’s feel is in the middle. All of these are powdery and most kick up a lot of product when touched with a brush. (2/5)

Packaging:
LA Colors is often stocked at dollar stores, and the packaging reflects that. It’s a simple plastic compact with a clear lid. It feels really lightweight and has that cheap feel. The lid snaps shut, but these kinds of lids can require a little force to open (increasing the risk of breakage, or damage to one’s manicure). But it’s functional, there’s no wasted space in the compact, and it get’s the job done. I wouldn’t rely on it to not get damaged in a fall or during travel, though. (3/5)


Price:
As I said, LA Colors often goes for just a dollar. Yes, that’s a steal, but when I factor this part of a product’s score, I always consider if the buyer is getting her money’s worth. With Wildflowers, I don’t think the quality is there to warrant a purchase, even for a buck. The product weight isn’t listed on the packaging, so I can’t be sure of the price per ounce. (3/5)

Wow Factor:
There is some wow factor, in a negative way. The lack of pigment, uneven texture, and weak staying power are all pretty remarkable. It left a strong impression that kind of puts me off from trying other palettes in this range. (1/5)

Overall:
Everyone loves a steal, but there’s just too much room for improvement in this palette for me to feel comfortable recommending it. The color payoff is lacking and the colors don’t work well together, creating a harsh, unflattering look. Shade 1 is the only one that functions well enough to get some use (as a highlight). Skip it. (2.2) D-


Swatches:

























Availability:
-Dollar Stores
-Wal-Mart
-K-Mart
-Big Lots
-Rite Aid
Cherry Culture

Useful Information:
-This product was gifted to me by my mother, who purchased it herself.
-This brand and it’s parent company (Beauty 21) are cruelty free and included on PETA’s list of brands that don’t test on animals. medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;

Almay Softies Eyeshadow in Honeydew Review

Image via Drugstore

**Unfortunately, my camera is broken! Since money is tight right now, I don’t know when I’ll be able to get a new one. Personal images/swatches will be up ASAP, but that could take a while. I’m so sorry for and disappointed by this inconvenience. Thank you beauties for being patient with me in the meantime.

I was curious about Almay products. I’ve seen the line loads of times at the drugstore, and wondered what they were like. I know they’re supposed to be gentle and great for sensitive skin, but I hadn’t heard anyone rave about this or that from Almay. So I decided to some detective work myself, and test out their new(ish) Softies Eyeshadow in the shade Honeydew.

Color:
I picked up Honeydew because I thought it would be this gorgeous green. While it looks like a lovely cool melon green with gold shimmer in the pan, that’s not what the reality is like at all. On the eye, it’s large gold glitter. That’s it. The green is nearly imperceptible, but there, on a swatch, but there’s nothing mildly green about it on the eye. Granted these do claim to give “a sheer wash of color,” but sheer doesn’t mean invisible, and there was no color, definitely not the “pure color” they promised. (1/5)

Wear:
While there was little to monitor, the gold shimmer that made it onto the eye stayed in place, with and without primer, for a full 8 hours. I didn’t have any issues with fallout. (5/5)

Formula:
To the touch, this shadow feels smooth but less soft. It’s not dry, but it’s not as blendable or buttery as my nicer shadows. It swatches sheer, but goes on even less visible. There’s no pigment here. The glitter/shimmer stays put, but it’s subtle, and doesn’t add any brightness or lift to the eyebrow/inner corner, so I wouldn’t even recommend it for a highlight. (2/5)

Packaging:
The product comes cased in a sleek, matte light black compact, with a mostly round shape (the bottom right edge is squared off). The ingredients and shade name are typed on the back, but it doesn’t actually say “Softies” anywhere on the packaging. It’s nice looking, especially for drugstore. It feels light, but not super cheap (although I don’t think it could survive much in terms of drops). The packaging is smooth and flat, so these are very easy to store (face up or on it’s side), and if you’re into depotting, I imagine this format won’t give you too much trouble. (4.5/5)

Price:
This shadow contains 0.07 oz of product and retails for $4.99 USD. That is both more product for less price than average, although I’d say it’s on par with other drugstore brands. (You’re getting 0.02 more oz for 3 times less than what you’d pay for a MAC shadow). However, I would recommend literally any other eyeshadow I’ve tried than this. I love a bargain as much as the next girl, but it has to be worth something still. And I don’t think this product provides any bang for any amount of buck, no matter how inexpensive. (3/5)

Wow Factor:
I wouldn’t say I’m fussy with shadows–I can usually find some way to work them and get great use out of them. The only way I see Honeydew working is maybe as a highlight. But even then, it’s too dull for the eye and too shimmery for the face. I hate to say it, but I see this as one product I feel I can do nothing with. I had high hopes for Almay’s new shadows, but this left me totally underwhelmed. (1/5)

Overall:
Save your money. I don’t think this particular shade is worth it, and I’m not exactly dying to go out and try the others in the line. There’s no pigment, and while the staying power on the glitter is good, I don’t have much use for wild shimmer. If you’re craving a pigment packed shadow, or natural eye highlight, you won’t find it here. (2.75) D+

Availability:
Almay products are available at drugstores and Ulta.

Useful Information:
-Almay formerly sold their products in China, but as of this year has pulled out of the Chinese market for financial reasons. It’s not publicly known yet if they’re “truly” cruelty-free now, and as always, I leave that decision up to the consumer.
-This product was purchased by me.

medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;

Illamasqua Nail Varnish in Load Review

Image via Sephora

Illamasqua Nail Varnish in Load taught me a lesson in consumerism. I typically hate when brands use sex to sell their cosmetics, but I thought “load” was just cheeky enough, something that would make you blush without being as in-your-face as, say NARS Orgasm. But a clever name isn’t enough to mask a bad product, and sadly, that’s all I got with this polish. If anything, it’s a reminder to use your brain when shopping for cosmetics (or anything, really!) and not get sucked into cutesy names.
Color:

The brand describes this shade as “a creamy white” with a “glossy finish.” I feel like it’s an apt description. On the nails, it’s a warm, subtle, ladylike off-white with a slightly yellow tinge. It changes slightly depending on the lighting, looking more yellow or more white, depending. It’s never stark, so it’s appropriate for work and would suit a broad range of skin tones. This works as an all-over nail shade, but I can see it working as the white section of a French manicure as well. It’s not fully-opaque. It’s nice, but it’s just an off-white cream. I don’t have any dupes on hand, but I feel like this color is common enough. (3.5/5)


Wear:

I was really disappointed by how Load performed, wear-wise. I did have one slight chip on my thumb after three days, nothing major. But by five days, I was appalled by how this looked. It didn’t chip any more, but it had this bizarre cracking! I’ve never seen a polish behave like that (when it wasn’t supposed to)! It was as if the polish dried out on the nail and just cracked, the way dry skin does (even with a top coat). (2/5)


Formula:

Load is easily the most difficult polish to work with that I own. The consistency is quite thick, and applies streaky. The only way to correct this polish’s streakiness was with thicker coats, which upped the already longer dry time. It takes three coats to get close enough to opaque coverage as possible, but on some nails there was still visible nail line after three layers. I’m no amateur to painting my own nails, but this was so difficult to work with. The formula applies unevenly and it’s harder to hide it’s bad effects than with other polishes. Not to mention the cracking I experienced! It just didn’t flow nicely across the nail and had so many problems. (1.5/5)


Packaging:

Illamasqua is one of the few brands that packages their lacquers in a box. This is still a throwaway part of the packaging, but it does contain a full ingredients list and is something I can understand with this brand’s higher price tag. The varnish comes in a rectangular bottle with a blocky, glossy black cap. The cap is cumbersome and a bit finicky to hold (and I have smaller fingers). The brush is average, long and thin. (4/5)


Price:

Illamasqua varnishes contain 0.5 fl oz of product, which is the average across most brands. However, this has one of the steeper price tags of $17 USD. That’s double the price of Essie and more than double the cost of OPI. If a shade is really unique and/or performs excellently with superior quality, I can overlook a bulky price tag. But Load certainly isn’t worth it. It’s too common, to generic, and far, far too problematic to warrant $17. (2/5)


Wow Factor:
I was lured into buying this product for the name, and it does look like it’s namesake, which earns it some creativity and originality points. I don’t think this kind of literal interpretation was a popular idea with other brands, so in that regard, it’s in a league of it’s own. The slightly altered affect it takes on with different lighting is a perk as well. However, I still find it ultimately more of a plain Jane kind of color. There may not be an exact dupe, but I don’t think it’s so unique that someone couldn’t rifle through their own collection or salon shelves, grab something cheaper, and think “close enough.” (2/5)

Useful Information:
-These varnishes are 3-free (but contain formaldehyde resin and camphor).

-Illamasqua is a UK based brand available exclusively at Sephora stateside.

-Illamasqua is not directly sold in China (technically making their products “fully” cruelty-free), but they do ship to Chinese customers via their website (as always, it’s up to you to decide if this meets your personal cruelty free standards).
Overall:

I wanted to love this polish, since it was so cheeky and was one of those trendy, “in” shades for a while. But this is just so, so flawed. It doesn’t perform the way an expensive polish should (or even an average polish–I have $1 polishes that outshine Load). I’m not totally put off from the brand; in fact, I long to buy more from them, including their polishes. But I would never repurchase this product or recommend it to anyone, especially those with low patience. That’s what I get for believing the hype! 2.5 (D)


Availability:

Illamasqua products are available to US customers exclusively at Sephora.
medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;

Urban Decay Eyeshadow in Psychedelic Sister Review

Image via Beautylish

Purple is one of my favorite colors, and I find that not only does purple shadow often look pretty in the pan, but it can translate nicely to the lid as well. Sadly, purple fundamentally has issues to work with (or so I hear). Urban Decay eyeshadow in Psychedelic Sister is a perfect example of “pretty but kind of fussy.” The brand describes is as a “deep amethyst shimmer,” and once again, I find that’s not quite accurate. PS looked more like a warm-toned, medium royal purple to me. 
On the lid without primer, the shadow went on richly and opaquely, but it got everywhere-under my eye and on my browbone-not where I placed it. Even when blended, it’s still an annoying mess. Also, the purple tinge drew negative attention to my undereye circles, since the powder fell all over the underye area. When a base was used, the pigment didn’t appear any brighter or richer, but the color was more controlled and detained to where I had originally placed it . In both instances the shadow blends easily. However, when worn without a primer, it blends a little too easily, and ends up sheering out pretty quickly. The powder also ended up feeling a bit dry.
But Psychedelic Sister didn’t stop disappointing me there. After just an hour, the shadow was so, so faded. Without a primer, it was completely sheer and nearly invisible, except for a bruise-like tinge. With primer, the color was more purple and there was more product intact, but it still looked considerably faded compared to the initial application-it also looked almost gone. By 2 hours the shadow also looked bruise-like when a primer was used. Strangely, when a base wasn’t used, the color remained consistently like a bruise for 8 hours. When a primer was used underneath, the color faded more rapidly, looking undetectable unless under very bright light at only 6 hours. That was the first (and so far only) time primer has made a product’s wear worse. 
Psychedelic Sister used to be confined strictly to the Book of Shadows III. However, with UD’s recent shadow relaunch, PS was added to the permanent range. It can now be purchased solo, in the brand’s new packaging. The containers are small, circular plastic with flip-top lids. The lids have a clear window, and are flat, making organizing, storing, and travelling with easy. I love that the minimal plastic in the packaging doesn’t take up extra space in makeup storage. The product pans also pop out, making transfer to a magnetic palette much simpler and safer than it used to be.
UD shadows retail for $18 USD (or $360 an ounce) for 0.05 oz of product. This is very important to consider when purchasing an item. PS in particular is far too problematic (and common of a color) to justify at that price tag. MAC has a variety of purples to choose from at $14 USD ($300 an ounce), and Wet ‘n’ Wild makes an 8-pan palette featuring many purple hues for only $4.99 USD ($16.60 an ounce). Both of these brands consistently have better quality, and are much more wallet-friendly, than this fussy eyeshadow. What could make it worth the purchase to certain consumers is that Urban Decay is somewhat animal-friendly. The brand itself is cruelty-free, however it’s parent company, L’Oreal, does perform animal testing.  

WITH PRIMER:
Color:
3/5
Wear: 1/5
Formula: 2/5
Packaging: 5/5
Price: 1/5
Wow Factor: 2/5
Overall: 2.3 (D-)

WITHOUT PRIMER:
Color: 3/5
Wear: 1/5
Formula: 1/5
Packaging: 5/5
Price: 1/5
Wow Factor: 1/5
Overall: 2 (D-)

Combined Scores: 2.2 (D-)
Recommend: No way. Psychedelic Sister is way too fussy and poorly-wearing to justify at $18. Many other brands are more affordable and do much better.

Urban Decay products are available at department stores, and at cosmetic retailers, like Ulta and Sephora. medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;

Urban Decay Eyeshadow in Radium Review

Image via Beautylish

Ah, blue. This is perhaps the trickiest eyeshadow color for me to wear. Despite this, I’m often drawn to how beautiful the color looks in the pan. Urban Decay Eyeshadow in Radium is one of these undeniably lovely to look at blues. It’s a bright, medium-toned shade, not quite navy. This is what I call “primary blue”, the first color one thinks of when she thinks of “blue.” Without primer, it looks like a soft, opaque denim shade. Naturally, with primer, Radium is bluer and brighter, and ends up looking more true to pan. UD calls it “peacock blue”, but that’s not accurate. “Peacock blue” is much greener. Radium is a much darker blue than it’s matching eyeliner, which looks more aqua in comparison.
Sadly, this shade is a bit powdery. I ended up with pigment under my eye when a base was not used. Even with a primer, it was still messy and fussy. In both instances, it was easy to blend. However, without a base, the color sheered out easily. Over one, it did not disappear when blended. 
Either way, Radium had faded after just an hour. The pigment was brighter (obviously) when a primer was used, but it was still markedly faded compared to initial application.Without primer, the color was blotchy and uneven at the 2 hour mark. By 4 hours, it was as if the shade had worn off and left a stain: it looks completely sheer, faded and translucent. With primer, Radium wore consistently (with that initial fading) for a total of 8 hours.

Urban Decay eyeshadows come in small, circular plastic containers. The pan pops out easily, and can quickly be converted to a magnetic palette if one chooses. They’re small and sturdy enough to travel comfortably with. Their petite size and flat tops make them easy to store as well. There is a clear window in the flip-top lid that allows the owner to see which color is inside. On the whole, the packaging is secure and very easy to use, store, and travel with.

UD shadows contain 0.05 oz of product, which is average. However, at $18 USD, it costs more per ounce than MAC (obviously, drugstore hues). This is important to consider when one evaluates the quality of a product. In this case, Radium is relatively basic (almost every brand has a standard blue), so dupes aren’t hard to find. Adding to the equation how poorly Radium performs, it would be best to save your money and purchase a cheaper, yet similar, shade. Urban Decay is a cruelty-free brand, which is important to many consumers. However, their parent company, L’Oreal, does perform animal testing, and profits from UD sales can contribute to that action.

WITH PRIMER:
Color:
3/5
Wear: 4/5
Formula: 3/5
Packaging: 5/5
Price: 2/5
Wow Factor: 3/5
Overall: 3.3 (C-)

WITHOUT PRIMER:
Color:
2/5
Wear: 2/5
Formula: 2/5
Packaging: 5/5
Price: 1/5
Wow Factor: 2/5
Overall: 2.3 (D-)

Combined Scores: 2.8 (D+)
Recommend: No. Radium is way to common, poorly-performing, and expensive for what you get. There are cheaper, higher-quality dupes on the market.

Urban Decay products can be found at department stores, online, and at cosmetic retailers like Sephora. medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;

Urban Decay Eyeshadow in Uzi Review (DISCONTINUED)


I know it seems like I spend 80% of the time reviewing Urban Decay eyeshadows, but there is a method to my madness. I have 2 full-size palettes (and one standalone pot)-for better or worse, UD makes up a large chunk of my cosmetic stash. And I believe there is some value in going over discontinued shades, like Uzi. Not only do they make enjoyable archives, but it’s good to be equipped with info, to shop around for cheaper, better quality stand-ins. Or maybe, if a shade is really bad, we can see why it was discontinued in the first place. Knowledge is power!
Uzi was described as a “metallic glitter with big, iridescent sparkles.” Unless you’re a fierce drag queen, or otherwise live on the dance floor, that probably doesn’t sound like such a dreamy concoction. (I’m all for a bold look, but big glitter is intimidating, even to the longtime makeup junkies!) When swatched, this is very soft and smooth in texture, with imperceptible glitter. It appears to be a shimmery white, but looks can be deceiving. This was incredibly powdery, with a lot of glitter kicked up from the pan. It went on opaquely and evenly. Also, this wasn’t a dream to blend, but it didn’t give me any hassles-just meh. 
With primer, this goes on the lid as a semi-sheer wintry white with chunky glitter. Some glitter actually made it onto the eye, but there was still one or two renegade fallout sparkles on my cheeks. Without primer, this is much sheerer (eyelid veins will show through). The glitter doesn’t quite make it to the eye-I ended up with about 5 chunks on my cheeks-so it appears merely as a frost on the lid. Either way, I did not get “metallic” anywhere in this shadow. 
Unlike other UD shadows I’ve reviewed, though, Uzi did not have the trademark “fade after an hour then set” formula. There was new fallout on my face after this time, though. The fading was put off until hour 2, when the unprimed eye looked very sheer and the primed eye looked more translucent. I had some more fallout appear at the 4-hour mark. By 6 hours, there was just a hint of color on the unprimed eye. At that point, the primed eye was still going strong, looking frosty and shimmery (and semi-sheer). By 7 hours, there is a mere subtle sheen remaining on the unprimed eye; the color had completely worn off. At this point, the primed eye had faded a bit more and was a touch sheerer. However, it remained like this until after the 12-hour mark. No new fallout emerged after the first 4 hours. The colors wore away evenly, with no patchiness. This did not crease at all.

While Uzi is no longer available, diligent beauty addicts can find it in hidden corners of the internet. If you do manage to get your hands on it, it will be cased in UD’s former packaging (which is not much different than the new one). The color pan will be surrounded by minimal, circular plastic. There will be a clear window in the lid, allowing the color to peek through. However, if you’re a magnetic pan fan, these older shadows are the kind you’d have to burn and pry off. “Vintage” UD shadows, like Uzi, came stocked with the same amount of product (0.05oz) as the present-day hues, but originally retailed for a dollar cheaper (you can expect the price to vary wildy and be higher or lower than that estimate, depending on where you hunt for this eyeshadow online). Urban Decay is a cruelty-free brand, but they are owned by L’Oreal, a major animal-testing company. (Although since this particular hue is not available directly from the brand, L’Oreal or UD would likely not receive a cut of the money were you to purchase it in 2013-this is reflected in the score).

WITH PRIMER:
Color: 3/5
Wear: 4/5
Formula: 2/5
Price: 2/5
Packaging: 5/5
Wow Factor: 2/5
Animal-Friendly: 3/3
Overall: 3 (C-)

WITHOUT PRIMER:
Color:
2/5
Wear: 3/5
Formula: 1/5
Price: 1/5
Packaging: 5/5
Wow Factor: 1/5
Animal-Friendly: 3/3
Overall: 2.3 (D-)

Combined Scores: 2.7 (D+)
Recommend: No, there are better binded/more opaque/shimmery/glittery white shadows on the market.

Urban Decay’s discontinued line of shadows can be bought from individual sellers on Ebay and Amazon, and from sites such as allcosmeticswholesale. medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;

Revlon Colorburst Lip Butter in Cupcake Review

Image via Amazon

When I first heard about Revlon’s Colorburst Lip Butters, I was beyond excited. I had heard excellent things about them, and thought the balm-lipstick hybrid idea was interesting. The fact that these promised not to forgo color sealed the deal. The first one I tried was Cupcake, a blue-based pink. (I love that all of the hues are named after sweets!) For anyone looking for a good dupe for MAC’s Viva Glam Gaga, this is a dead ringer. I wore Revlon on my bottom lip and Gaga on the top, and no one was the wiser (although Gaga’s is slightly brighter). This formula imparts a wet-looking sheen on the lips as well as pigment.
While an affordable dupe (half the price of MAC’s and not limited edition) is always something to rave about, I found Cupcake’s application much less thrilling. It’s very difficult to get this to apply evenly. If you have any dry patches on your lips, this will simply not adhere to them-it looks like only part of my lips got dabbed with lipstick, and the drier patches in the center were totally skipped. Even when I tried certain techniques to mask the uneven application, any movement of my lips destroyed my work. Apart from the patchy application, this also bunches up over itself after 2 hours of wear. These are creamy enough to transfer onto a cup when you drink.
While these feel creamy and lovely going on the lips (and slightly thick at first), they don’t disappear as dreamy. As I’ve mentioned, the color bunches up after 2 hours. At that mark, it also fades (about 50% of my natural lip color was showing) and the initial glossiness was gone. The fading, bunching, and uneven application were remarkable by hour 3. From a distant, my lips had a rosiness that looked presentable; however, up close, the patchiness and sheerness were very apparent. This flaked and peeled off completely by hour 4. One positive though, is that the formula did not at all feel drying on the lips.
These come in cute quilted tubes, with the cap tinted to match the internal lipstick color (so cupcake’s cap is a soft cool pink). There is a clear window at the top, like other Revlon lip products, that allow you to look in and see the specific shade. The inner tube is metallic and twist-up. The actual lipstick is shaped in a way that reminds me of MAC’s Mattene design. Also like MAC, these have a sweet vanilla scent, although Revlon’s is subtler than MAC’s. There is no taste. Unfortunately, the lipstick tends to get caught on the side of the tube as you twist it back down, shaving some off, which is wasteful and annoying. These are easily accessible and retail for $7.49 USD.
Color: 3/5
Wear: 3/5
Formula: 1/5
Packaging: 2/5
Price: 2/5
Wow Factor: 2/5
Overall: 2.2 (D-)
Recommend: With how many blue-based pinks there are on the market that perform better than this, no.
This product was purchased by PV.
Revlon products are available at drugstores, mass retailers, and specialty shops such as Ulta.


medianet_width=’600′; medianet_height= ‘250’; medianet_crid=’228266391′;