Recent Disappointing Products

My beauty life tends to go in phases: either I'm trying a bunch of new products and I really like almost every one of them, or I'm trying a bunch of products and they're all utter crap. August was unfortunately another month full of not-so-good stuff, and to be honest, most of it was so "meh" to me that I didn't even have the patience to write full, exhaustive reviews for every one of them. Instead, I thought I'd do another disappointing products post! These are all products that would rank at 2 out of 5 or less in a full review.

Living Proof Perfect Hair Day Dry Shampoo -- I normally use drugstore dry shampoos, but I heard so many good things about the Living Proof option that I decided to give it a shot. Although the travel size is almost double what I usually pay for dry shampoo ($12 for 1.8oz), I got at least 10 good uses out of this bottle. And this dry shampoo does something pretty impressive: instead of just making your hair less oily and more textured, it actually makes your hair feel cleaner to the touch. My praise stops there, though, because it certainly doesn't make my hair look cleaner. I've used a lot of dry shampoos, but none of them has left this much white residue in my hair. And it's resilient residue, too: I've restyled my hair two or three times in a row after using the PhD Dry Shampoo, brushing it all the way through every time, and I'll still find massive white flakes all through my hair. I'm glad to be done with this junk.

Lit Cosmetics Clearly Liquid Glitter Base -- As a glitter primer, this stuff is hard to beat. Unlike other options on the market, it's completely weightless and not sticky in the slightest--it feels like water going on your lids. Yet it holds your glitter on all  night and is easy to remove when you get home. My beef with this product is that it seems to go bad so damn quickly. I'm on my second bottle in two years, and it's already taken on a weird, jaundiced yellow color and a rank smell. I thought I was having some bad luck, but a few of my friends who wear glitter far more often have mentioned that their bottles also start to go off after 6 months or so. It's still the best glitter primer on the market, in my opinion, but I wish it lasted longer.

Caudalie Resveratrol Lift Eye Lifting Cream -- I'm rarely impressed by eye creams, but I still think they're fun to try, so I was excited to see this pop up in my Sephora Play! box. After using it for about 2 weeks, however, I had to give this Caudalie cream the axe. I began noticing clogged pores around the outer portion of my eye, where I pretty much never break out; as soon as I stopped using this eye cream, they began to fade. It's not like this did much for my eyes when I was using it, honestly--it has a lightweight texture and is soothing and moisturizing, but so are a lot of other eye creams. Save your $62.

Namaste freshly applied (top) and after 4 hours (bottom). The lipliner is NYX Nude Pink.

Tarte Tarteist Cream Matte Lip Paint in Namaste -- I got this deluxe sample with a Sephora coupon code much earlier this summer, but because I'm always trying to space out my new products, I didn't try it until the fall semester rolled around. I understand why these are so popular, to be honest: they contain massive amounts of silicone, which makes the formula weightless and very smooth. It almost feels weird to spread this on my lips because it reminds me so much of a face primer. The color is gorgeous, too, especially with a bit of lipliner around the edges to add depth and warmth. Unfortunately, this formula emphasized dry patches and, to a lesser extent, fine lines. It dried out my mouth within an hour and began to smear and fade after three or four hours. There are much, much better matte liquid lipsticks available at this price point.

MAC Satin Lipstick in Twig -- This lipstick shade is apparently all the rage right now, probably because it's the sort of mauve shade one of the Kardashians is wearing. (Kylie? Kendall? I'm having trouble "keeping up" with them.) I love MAC lipsticks and usually have zero problems with the Satins, but this one was really dry on me and totally parched my lips. I also found that the shade was completely unflattering on me. It turned damn near gray on my mouth and made me look dull and washed out. The shade issue is certainly dependent on skintone, but again, the formula left something to be desired as well.

REVIEW: Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer

I don't talk about concealer too much on this blog. It has less to do with the fact that I have decent skin and more to do with the fact that I don't try new ones very often. It's just hard to top the Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer's coverage or the NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer's flexibility. And I have a "fair, cool yellow" match in both lines! Why stray?

Sephora had their VIB sale earlier this month, though, and I heard the siren's call of this new Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer. Touted as "invisible coverage" that will give you "instant under eye perfection," I knew I wanted to test this product out on the Underye Circles of Doom.

The Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer is a liquid concealer housed in a small squeeze tube with a tiny nozzle. I've heard a few people complaining that it's hard to control how much product you dispense, but I had no problem getting the ittiest bittiest smidge out of the tube; I just gave it a very gentle, quick squeeze. I like that this packaging is simple, but effective, and relatively sanitary. At $27 for 0.23 fluid ounces of product, it's on par price-wise with the aforementioned NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer and many other high end options.

Natural light on top, flash on the bottom. From left to right: Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer in Y21, NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chantilly, Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer in Fair Neutral, Kevyn Aucoin Sensual Skin Enhancer in Sx01.

I was told that this color range ran lighter than it looks on the website, and sure enough, Y21 (the lightest yellow-based shade) is one of the absolute palest concealers I've ever seen, if not THE palest. I will note, however, that its undertones look a bit more neutral than truly yellow to me, which I think makes the shades it's swatched against seem much darker by comparison. Regardless, I did have a shade match.

I also liked the texture of this product when I first felt it: it's an extremely thin liquid with plenty of slip. I figured it would be weightless and blendable.

The actual performance of this concealer, however, left much to be desired. I patted this on my undereye area and was miffed when I realized...it wasn't covering much of anything. It softened the area a bit and added shine, but if you have very dark undereye circles and you're not getting a lot of actual coverage from a product, shining a spotlight on the area is not optimal. You can see this in the before and after picture above: my undereye area is still dark, but now it looks slightly softer (good) and ashier (nooooooo).

Because it didn't do much for my undereyes, I decided to try blotting it on the two red cheek blemishes that were still somewhat visible through my foundation. Bad idea: the glowiness of this foundation bounced back tons of light, magnifying the imperfections. Those spots actually look white in the after photo. Now, this is marketed specifically as an undereye product, so it'd be a little uncouth to knock it for being worthless on blemishes. But it is disappointing that I couldn't find an alternate use for the product.

I tried applying this product with both a brush and my fingers, and neither seemed to alter the coverage or the finish.

You know what else is disappointing? The performance. This product dries very quickly. That's a trait I sometimes enjoy in a blemish concealer, since I don't want it rubbing off of my face. In an undereye concealer, however, it can emphasize fine lines and make the product harder to work with.

I was able to blend it over my undereye circles with relative ease, and I didn't fuss too much when some product settled in to my fine lines after about 15 minutes, since that happens with just about every concealer on the market. When I went to tap the product out of my lines, though, it would. not. budge. So each time I tested this stuff, I spent the day with blatantly shiny lines under my eyes. The one upside here is that the product is weightless, so at least I didn't have to feel those lines all day.

Oh, and hey, let's talk about that shade range again.

I mentioned I was a little miffed about the shade range when I first started testing this product, and a few people asked, "Why? You're so pale! I thought it running light would be a good thing?" Well, yes, I'm glad there's a shade for me. And I like that they separate undertones clearly: shades starting with a Y have a yellow undertone, shades starting with an R have a pink undertone.

But there are only 5 yellow shades and 5 pink shades, and the range runs light, and the darkest shade is described as being for "tan" skintones. Are you catching my drift? Are you seeing the issue here? If you aren't, go on ahead and do a Google image search for "Makeup Forever Ultra HD Concealer swatches." I'll wait.

What the sweet fuck is this shade range?! I regularly complain about shade ranges stopping at "white girl tan," but this takes it to a whole new level; this is whiter than monster truck rallies, pumpkin spice lattes, and New Hampshire.

Yes, there is room left for expansion--the red-based shades jump from R32 to R40, for instance--but why should we have to wait for people of color to be represented? It's an annoying trend in the US cosmetics market right now: base products are released with a small shade range, and anybody darker than about NW35/NC35 on a MAC scale has to pester the company to release deeper shades. Launching a product too early and forcing an already under-represented chunk of your consumer base to wait, nay, beg for a shade option is ridiculous. Creator Dany Sanz has been in the industry for decades, the brand is sold in numerous countries, and the Makeup Forever HD foundation range is decently broad. There's no excuse. Just wait a few months and release the product when more of the population is represented.

I like the feel and packaging of this concealer, but my praise stops there. As an underye corrector, it's far below standards, and it doesn't function as a blemish concealer, either. Unless you have the most barely-there undereye circles known to mankind and you're on the light shade of the skintone spectrum and you don't have fine lines under or around your eyes, give this one a pass.

RATING: 1 out of 5

This product is available at Sephora.com.

REVIEW: Burberry Fresh Glow Luminous Fluid Base

Sometimes, you place an order for a new lipstick or a delightful fragrance, and you're just as excited to receive those full-sized products as you are the free samples that come with it. This was how I felt when I placed a Sephora VIB order and added on a deluxe sample of the Burberry Fresh Glow Luminous Fluid Base, a multipurpose primer/highlighter product that's been lauded by incredible artists like Wendy Rowe. In fact, I was so enthralled by the rave reviews from fellow dry-skinned folks that I almost purchased a full bottle a few months back!

Let's talk about that full bottle for the moment. While this sample was free, the full bottle is definitely not; in fact, it's a little pricey: $48 for 1 oz of product. To be fair, this is on par with many high-end foundations and you do get a full ounce, but it's still a luxury product. The packaging is suitably beautiful AND functional, with a see-through container so you can see how much you've used and a pump to keep it all sanitary. This product comes in two shades: the one I have, 01 Nude Radiance, and a darker, warmer shade, 02 Golden Radiance.

Be prepared for lots of shots of my gooey nostrils. Sorry.

Burberry claims that this product can be used multiple ways: it can be used all over your face on bare skin or under foundation to give you a glow, it can be applied like a highlighter, and it can be mixed with other products (like eyeshadow) to sheer them out and amp up their shine. Having heard that this was the primer for dry skin, I decided to test it first as a primer...and if you saw this video, you know I was instantly stymied.

The above macro shot shows why. While MAC Face & Body usually has a slightly glowy finish on me, it looked much drier on top of the Burberry primer. It quickly moved in to the fine lines around my mouth and nose, which is not normal, either. Nor is it common for me to have so much difficulty blending products on top of my foundation. The Burberry primer is also full of micro-shimmer, and while I'll complain about that more later, I want to point out that you can see it through the foundation--look at the two sparkly dots above the corner of my mouth.

The glow on my cheeks is from Becca Shimmering Skin Perfector in Pearl, not Burberry Fresh Glow.

Further back and with flash, it's slightly less dry-looking, but my base is still not as natural and healthy-looking as usual. A few folks on Makeup Alley suggested that the problem may be MAC Face & Body, which can interact oddly with primers and moisturizers due to its unusual formulation, so I tested it with a few other foundations. Nope, same results: it looked just as dry and awful under Buxom Show Some Skin and the NARS Radiant Cream Compact Foundation.

Mixing Fresh Glow with the foundation didn't seem to improve matters. It just made me look a bit less dry, a bit more sparkly, probably because it was evenly mixed with the base, not slightly covered up by it. And I absolutely cannot get behind the idea of wearing it on my bare face with nothing else. Get in the light, it turns to pure sparkle, and that's not what I want people to see.

This photo, take 6 hours after I primed with Burberry Fresh Glow, really shows why I can't get behind this product the way many have. I can count the number of times I have seen my foundation looking this patchy, dry, and disgusting on one hand.Where is the promised glow? The "youthful" luminosity? All I see is something that made me look like a zombie.

Honestly, the only way I was able to get this product to work was as a cheek highlighter. Dabbed lightly over foundation, it was decently pretty and shiny, though still too sparkly for my tastes.

Burberry Flesh Glow 01 Nude Radiance on the left, MAC Strobe Cream on the right.

Beyond the dry dry dryness of it on my skin, the sparkliness of this product is my biggest beef. The product page actually claims that this product will give you "shimmer-free, youthful-looking luminosity." Shimmer-free?! Are you fucking kidding me?! You can see the glitter particles on this as soon as you rub it on your skin! And as the above (painstakingly taken) photos show, there is absolutely fine shimmer in Fresh Glow, which is obvious in direct sunlight.

I took the above photos because I wanted to compare Burberry Fresh Glow to a similar product, MAC Strobe Cream. Both products are meant to be sheer and glowy multipurpose wonders. But between the two, Strobe Cream is the clear winner for me. Somehow, the shimmer in it is more refined--I can wear it, on bare skin and in direct sunlight, without looking like a disco ball--and the cream texture actually adds a bit of moisture to the skin. I have long promoted this product as a dual cheek highlighter and all-over skin enhancer, and the photos speak for themselves. To add insult to injury, a 1 ounce tube of Strobe Cream is $10, almost 1/5 the price of the Burberry Fresh Glow.

I wanted to love this product. I tried hard to love this product. Honestly, writing this review is a bit scary for me, because I know so many people truly adore and depend on this stuff. But for me, it was an absolute failure. Its only use is as a cheek highlighter, and even then, there are other products that are vastly superior.

1 out of 5

Burberry Fresh Glow is available at Sephora.

REVIEW: Benefit Lolli Tint

Getting my hands on Benefit Lolli Tint was...interesting. While I enjoyed Benetint, I had less luck with Posietint, making me hesitant to dish out $30 for a brand new, full-sized bottle. Lucky for me, a seller on Reddit was purging her barely-used bottles of Chacha Tint and Lolli Tint at a great price. I jumped on the deal, oh so excited to get my new goodies!

Then this happened:

Is...is that a boot print on my package? Wow. Just wow.

Needless to say, the stuff was not usable, nor could it be exchanged. The seller was kind enough to refund me--even though this mess was totally not her fault--and I fumed for a good 24 hours.

Then a friend said, "Oh, hey, I have Lolli Tint and I never use it; wanna swap for this lipstick I want?" Huzzah! The tint was obtained!

Benefit charges $30 for 12mL of product, which isn't bad as far as stains go. The packaging of Benefit's tints is the subject of much debate: it comes in plastic bottles with a nail polish-type applicator. A lot of people reeeeaaally hate this packaging, but I don't mind it; I had no problem swiping the stuff on my cheeks and lips, then blending it in with a finger. If you're concerned about keeping the product sanitary, you can use a clean finger or a spatula to remove some from the brush tip and apply from there.

Benefit describes Lolli Tint as a "candy orchid" color that will work well on your lips and cheeks. This is a relatively accurate depiction of the color, at least on swatching: it's a creamy, dreamy, soft purple color that makes me weak at the knees.

Wearing Lolli Tint, though, wasn't the purple dream I expected. While this stain looks like a cool, bright pink or even a soft lavender on other people, it looks like...plain pink on my cheeks. It's not bad, but it's definitely not the color I expected. The same goes for my lips: it sort of "darkened up" my natural lip color.

The formula is quite thin, so I only applied the stuff to one cheek at a time, then worked quickly to blend it out. This didn't bother me because it's par for the course with stains. What did bother me was that I didn't get much pigmentation with one layer, despite the fact that I am very pale-skinned; I had to add three layers of product to my cheeks and two to my lips to get it to show up fully. I can't imagine this working on anybody with a deeper skintone.

My biggest problem with Lolli Tint is that it just looked awful on me. On my cheeks, it highlighted texture I didn't even know I had--see the tiny red "specks" in the macro shot above. Instead of looking like I was blushing and cute, I looked like I had a terrible fever. The stain did last for 5-6 hours, but because it was hideous, I wasn't too thrilled by that.

This was also a poor excuse for a lipstain. Again, it made my lips look darker, not cool pink or lagender, and after an hour, all of the color had gathered in the center of my lips. It also left my lips completely parched.

The frustrating thing is that I didn't really have these problems with the original Benetint. Benetint sat well on my lips and cheeks and was the perfect "in from the cold" color. It left me with high expectations for other stains. Lolli Tint? Totally not matching up.

RATING: 1 out of 5

REVIEW: PK (Paul Kiler) Perfumes

If I'm going to do fragrance reviews--a very shaky, scary territory for somebody like me--then I'm going to start off with a bang. These reviews cover most of the discovery set from PK Perfumes, fragrances designed by nose Paul Kiler. When the folks at Makeup Alley began posting slews of Cyber Monday coupon codes for fragrance websites, I dove straight for Kiler's work because of his sterling reputation, his involvement in the community (you'll see him posting on YouTube and Basenotes from time to time), and the lack of reviews for his fragrances.

Yes, yes, I admit that I bought something, in part, because not a lot of people have written about it. But, um...I didn't actually buy it. More on that in the overview section. This is going to be quite a long review with lots of pictures, so I'm going to put my overview, my impressions of the individual fragrances, and my final say under a cut.

Seriously. Grab a cup of coffee and a snack. You've been warned.

NOTE: The header images for the like, dislike, and crown jewels sections come directly from Kiler's website; all credit goes where it's due. Other images are mine OR are credited to other artists. Some of these reviews are available, slightly altered, on Fragrantica. 

REVIEW(S): Forever 21 "Love & Beauty" Makeup

Forever 21 isn't exactly a store you'd equate with great makeup. Instead, it's the most popular purveyor of cheap, uber-hipster clothing in my neck of the woods, a store full of see-through crop tops and spandex shorts for $20 or less. That's not to say it's BAD--some people can really rock those shorts--but the vibe doesn't lend itself to makeup.

But Forever 21 does, in fact, sell a wide range of makeup and beauty products, all of which seem to be from a brand called "Love & Beauty." I'd heard that some of these products were incredible for the price point, namely the eyeshadows and lipsticks, so I decided to take a $20 and check it out.

For the record: all of these products were $3.80 when I purchased them with the exception of the cream blush, which cost $0.99.

The Liquid Eye Liner

My my my. If you want to talk about something that's the stuff of my nightmares, the Love & Beauty liquid eyeliner would probably be the top candidate.

First, the good: the brush tip applicator is actually quite well-made and easy to control. I didn't have to deal with any splayed hairs. Also, I didn't pick up any odor.

...annnnnd the good stops there. This was one of the most watery, messy liquid eyeliner formulas I've ever dealt with. While it was easy to draw a straight line with the brush tip, said straight line was a mixture of "blah gray" and "oh there's no makeup here!" It also took its sweet time drying, which left me with a few smears to clean up. I realize that the header image for this post is a little misleading, seeing as the eyeliner shown in said image is quite solid and black. That's because I refused to let that hideous Love & Beauty crap shine through in a FOTD-type picture, so I went over both eyes with the Wet n' Wild Mega Liner.

The difference is night and day. Fun fact: the Wet n' Wild liquid liner is roughly the same price as Love & Beauty's similar offering, and it works ten times better. So just go for that bad boy.

The Cream Blush

I didn't have very high expectations for this cream blush, mostly because my experiences with bargain basement cream blushes have led me to believe that they are Just Plain Crap (tm). With the noticeable exceptions of the NYC Blushable Cream Sticks (which are better than most HE cream blush sticks and were discontinued shortly after they were brought out, WTF) and the NYX cream blushes (great drugstore option for those who like an emollient formula!), all of the drugstore cream blushes I've tried have had a waxy texture, stupid amounts of chunky glitter, and/or zero pigmentation.

The Love &  Beauty cream blush does contain some pointless sparkle, but the actual product itself isn't all that bad.

Here's two layers of the cream blush over a sheer foundation. As you can see, there are some sparkles that don't really do anything (the slight glow you're seeing is just the natural glow I get in the summer, AKA sweat), but they're not particularly chunky or obnoxious. The pigmentation is decent. And the formulation is quite comfortable: it reminds me of the Lipstick Queen Oxymoron Matte Glosses insofar as it's dry in the pan, but quickly warms under the heat of your fingers and is easy to blend. This blush lasted for about 5-6 hours with minimal fading.

I'm not overly impressed with the shade; to me, it's just a standard pink that neither brightens nor muddies my complexion. But because it's cheap, has good staying power, and is easy to apply, I'll probably throw it in my makeup bag. It'll work in a pinch, and it's not a financial blow if it gets lost.

Lipsticks

You'd think I'd have the best handle on this part of the review, seeing as I'm a lipstick fanatic who reviews pout paints regularly. But I'm not quite sure how I feel about these lipsticks, to be honest. On the one hand, they perform impressively, especially for a bargain lipstick; on the other hand, they have some characteristics that drive me batshit insane.

The most obvious problem? The packaging.

Notice our special guest?

This is what happened to Matte Fuchsia's cheap plastic packaging the first time I tried to open the tube. No, really: all I did was take the cap off, and it fell to pieces. I've experienced some truly faulty packaging, but this go-boom incident really blew my mind. How would this thing survive in a purse or makeup bag? (Hint: it probably wouldn't.)

The explosion only happened with Matte Fuchsia, but the packaging for all 3 lipsticks I purchased was flimsy, and none of the lids felt particularly tight.

Matte Fuchsia: blotted vs. applied thickly

Still, I gave each lipstick the good college try, and I was simultaneously impressed and annoyed. Straight off the bat, the matte lipstick formulation has a somewhat silicone-y feel, so it sits comfortably on your lips (I didn't experience any dryness or tightness), but it's just about impossible to get a strong lipline. Even when I applied with a lip brush, I felt like the matte lipsticks always had a "blurred" look around the edges. This isn't a deal-breaker for some people, and I actually liked the softness when I wore the shades blotted. But when I tried to do a full-on layer of lipstick, the smeariness irritated me.

The creme formulation is, of course, more glossy. It's also a little less pigmented, though I still got decent color payoff. Both formulations lasted for about 5 hours before needing touch-ups, and the matte lipsticks stuck it out with next to no fading through eating and drinking. However, those matte formulations also stain a bit, especially the fuchsia shade.

From left to right: Matte Fuchsia, Creme Coral Pink, Matte Red

Which leads me to my next problem: the shades. Do I just have a weird personal color scheme, or is that Matte Fuchsia lipstick more berry than fuchsia?! Fuchsia, to me, is a cool, hot pink with hints of purple; this shade was far more purple and dark than I would expect. The Matte Red is okay, but pretty uninspiring. Coral Pink Creme is the most aptly named and attractive in terms of color, but the matte formulation is more impressive to me.

I don't think I'll buy more of these unless they come out with a super-unique shade, and I'll be getting rid of the red for sure (my other reds are far more impressive). But...I'm not so sure about the other two. Coral Pink is different, shade-wise, from anything else in my collection at the moment, and Fuchsia looks rather nice blotted down. I'll have to think about those two.

Final Verdict?

There were hits and misses here, which is the case with any brand. Over the years, I've learned what I like and what works for me, and most of these products don't fit the bill as perfectly as other products in my collection. But you know what? With the exception of the Eyeliner From Hell, they're not that bad. Actually, they're quite nice and affordable. I could easily see buying a lipstick or an eyeshadow palette from this brand for a younger child who's just getting in to makeup, or if you want cheaper options for your travel makeup bag. And if you're on a tight budget? Eh, it's worth a try.

LIQUID EYELINER: 1 out of 5 (props for the brush)

CREAM BLUSH: 4 out of 5

LIPSTICKS: 4 out of 5

REVIEW: Givenchy Photo'Perfexion Fluid Foundation

Beautifully packaged, loaded with shades for pale undertones, and fronted by Liv Tyler: what's not to love about Givenchy Photo'Perfexion Fluid Foundation? I mean, here's a product that's not only advertised as one of the most skin-like products you'll ever use ("100% Natural Complexion!"), but is also supposedly the makeup equivalent of airbrush. "Velvety finish!" "Minus the heavy, cakey feeling!" And there's SPF20! Oh, goody goody goody, count me in!

But not really, because this foundation is the stuff of the my NIGHTMARES.

First, a good thing: the packaging is really beautiful. It's a glass bottle with a plastic pump and lid. The pump is easy to control; I was able to get a pump and a half (enough to cover my face and the top of my neck) without trouble. And another good thing is that this product contains SPF20, but doesn't flash back.

Okay, the good things stop there. Brace yourselves.

 From left to right: Givenchy Photo'Perfexion in #1 Perfect Ivory, MAC Face & Body in N1, Koh Gen Do Manifashi Moisture Foundation in 001, Kat Von D Lock It foundation in #42

 For one thing, calling the #1 Perfect Ivory shade a match for "fair complexions with neutral undertones" is an outright lie. I almost laughed when I saw the bottle for the first time, because it's very obviously pink-toned, bordering on peach.

And that's just when you first apply it: within a half an hour, my face was three shades too dark and outright ORANGE. I don't mean, "Oh, it oxidized a bit too dark and a bit too pink," I mean I looked like an Oompa-Loompa. I didn't photograph it because my boyfriend reads this blog, and I'd like to continue being somewhat attractive to him.

And the smell? God, don't even get me started. It's this incredibly sweet, artificial, floral perfume-ish smell that's still detectable after applying the product. I'm serious: I just completed my second 8-hour test run as I'm typing this, and I can smell that awful stench. Dear foundations: I'm not big on strong fragrances to begin with, but if I have to smell like a stomach-churning mish-mash of grandma perfumes all day long? WOE BE UNTO YOU, MY FRIEND.

Even if we forgive the color and forgo the smell, this product just doesn't look good on any part of my face. Now, I can understand the ickiness at the end of my nose in these pictures, because I'd just gotten over a cold and still had some chapped, flaky skin there. But the rest of my face? I have ZERO textural issues on my cheeks; although they are dry, they feel relatively smooth and aren't flaky or lined. Givenchy Photo'Perfexion was kind enough to create some texture for me! Seriously, it aged me by at least a decade. There's nothing "velvety" or "natural" about this product, guys; it's a no-holds-barred chalky matte mess.

It's not much better on my nose, either, even when I'm sans-flakes. The foundation caked in to my pores and exacerbated my oiliness. Within an hour, the product had separated on my nose, but remained cakey and flakey on the rest of my face. By the end of the day, the product has caked up in the fine lines around my mouth, nose, and eyes.

The skin in the middle of my forehead is what most people would consider "normal"--not oily, not dry, not textured in any way, just kinda there--and it even managed to look flat and awful there. What gives? How is it possible for a foundation to look so awful on oily, normal, and dry skin?

Still don't believe me? Here's a macro shot.

MY CHEEKS LOOK LIKE ASTRO-TURF! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!

The finish is so bad that after I apply this foundation, I have zero desire to put on the rest of my makeup. The first time I wore this foundation, I had to FORCE myself to put on brow pencil, lipstick, and blush. Then I sat around feeling miserable, just dying to take a shower. Today I'm wearing just the foundation and nothing else--no need to put forth an effort when I know I'm going to look like shit!

The final nail in the coffin is the way this product feels. I can feel Photo'Perfexion sitting on my skin all day long, as if I have a mask on my face. As soon as I put it on, I want to scrub it right back off. Disgusting. The feeling has completely turned me off of Givenchy's entire line, it's that bad.

I really, really wanted to love this product, but I just can't. There isn't a single person I would recommend this monstrosity to...not even Liv Tyler.

RATING: 1 out of 5.

REVIEW: L'oreal Colour Riche LeMatte Lip Color

Man, say that title five times fast. I'm not even going to continue on with that tongue twister; I'm just going to call the L'oreal Colour Riche Le Matte Lip Colors "the LeMattes." Kind of sounds like a socialite's last name, yeah?

I bought the bright coral-pink shade, #408 (She's So Matte). And I quickly learned that, despite the fancy name, there's nothing particularly splendid or "riche" about this product. For starters, the tip of my brand new LeMatte was smooshed to bits, even though it was still factory-sealed in the package. I was able to mold the tip back in to usable shape, but the damage meant that I had to deal with chunks of product coming off on my lips the first time I used it. I was in the college bathroom dabbing bits of LeMatte off of my chin as fast as I could, trying to prevent smears...not amused, L'oreal.

The actual application and color of the product seemed nice, however. The formula has a lot of slip; it actually feels like a silicone-heavy face primer, which was interesting. It's definitely matte and comes off true to color in one swipe. The pencil format makes it easy to apply this product, even if you're new to bright lipsticks. It doesn't feel any more drying than other matte lipsticks, although you'll probably want to prep your lips with an exfoliant and some balm beforehand.

But that slip isn't all it's cracked up to be, because the LeMattes actually slip right over any part of your lips that isn't super-duper soft. The very inner portion of most people's lips is, in my experience, slightly harder in texture and more prone to dryness. As you can clearly see in this picture, the LeMatte wouldn't apply smoothly to that inner portion of my lips. It applied in dry, patchy-looking sections, caking up in a few cracks and crevices and just barely staining the rest. Regardless of how much product I applied or how much rubbing I did with my lips or fingers, I couldn't get the color to apply evenly.

I also found that She's So Matte feathered almost instantly. Again, it's like the product has a little too much slip. Any bright lip color that smears and feathers, even with a dryer formula, is a no-go in my book.

I will say that the color is incredibly beautiful. It immediately reminded me of MAC Party Parrot, and when I swatched them up against each other, BOOM! Dupes! She's So Matte is maybe the tiniest smidge more red, but even super-fussy-about-color-nuances folks will be hard-pressed to tell the difference between these two on somebody's lips...at least when it comes to color. The extreme difference in application and texture would be a dead giveaway.

So what do the LeMattes have going for them? Not much. Someone with truly perfect lips or an intense obsession with finding a Party Parrot color dupe may be able to make better use of them than I. But at $9 each, and with little staying power and poor application, these aren't a limited edition item I'd go nuts over. It might be better to stick with the LeLacques, L'oreal's glossy pencil, if you want anything from their Fall collection.

RATING: 1 out of 5.

Review: Cargo Color Palettes + FOTD

I'm more than a little nervous about so many stores sweeping Cargo products off of their shelves. Cargo is a truly underrated company that, in my relatively relevant opinion, makes some of the best powder blushes available. Yet their word of mouth isn't all that strong, and by the time potential new buyers get interested in their products due to massive clearance sales, the brand may very well go extinct. However, I won't deny that I took advantage of one of those big clearance sales, hovering around my Sephora-in-JCPenny's Cargo rack for almost an hour, trying to pick just a few products. I grabbed two of these 4-pan Color Palettes for $17 each (retail $30), hoping I'd love Cargo's eyeshadows even half as much as their blushes.

Alas, I do not love them as much as the blushes, although admittedly, Key Largo is a tough act to follow. But they're still lovely little palettes...provided you pick the right one and really work with it.

Let's run through the basics. Each palette contains 4 eyeshadows, and each eyeshadow pan is 3.5g for a total of 14g of product per palette. None of the eyeshadows have names, but they are lettered A, B, C, and D on the back. The cases are plastic, but it's a thick, heavy plastic, and they haven't cracked or shattered despite me dropping them all over the house. The snap closure is tight and secure without being a complete pain to open. The cover designs are made to look like rough watercolor paintings, some of which are very appealing to me (Tahiti, right) and some of which are just kinda boring (Vienna, left).

Tahiti is obviously the palette that REALLY caught my attention. It's a collection of beautiful, bright green and blue jewel tones, some of my favorite shades. I really do love how the colors for each palette was selected; it's like they have 3 obvious "partners" and 1 "surprise" shade that, despite being the obvious odd kid, still works with the rest of them. Here's a look I did using all of the colors from Tahiti (plus the Catalina blush) that really shows just how VIBRANT these can be:

Now, you'll notice that I said "how vibrant these can be." That's because the texture of these eyeshadows is...kind of tricky. You see, they're a bit dry and "sticky." I don't mean sticky-tacky, I mean they literally stick to brushes or fingers, and it can be difficult to get them on to your eyelid. My first time out of the gate, I tried to apply the chartreuse shade with a dry eyeshadow brush. It was barely a limey sparkle. Then I tried wetting the brush...okay, a little MORE sparkle, but still nothing to write home about. Frustrated, I rubbed my fingers in to eyeshadow (which, again, has a bit of dry texture) and took a peek: tons of bright, vibrant color! Hey...wait a second...I patted the color on to my lid. Finally, more than just sparkle! But it was still a smidge sheer. So I dampened my finger, rubbed it in to the shadow, then patted it on...and BOOM! Uber-vibrant color.

2 layers of eyeshadow applied wet.

In other words, you need the firm pressure of a finger to really transfer the product on to your eyelids, and you need moisture to make them as bright as they are in the pan. I'm actually not entirely against the whole moisture thing, because it takes very little to foil them, and they don't crack or fade when foiled. I also like that you can tone these bright shades down a bit by applying them dry. The shades are beautiful and multipurpose, so Tahiti has quickly become a favorite palette of mine. That being said, I don't know if these are necessarily the BEST jewel-toned shadows out there.

I'm afraid Vienna doesn't quite match up to Tahiti. This was the palette my sister picked; I think the dark navy blue and the soft, harmless neutrals really appealed to her. And in the pan, they have real promise: they look rich, pigmented, and harmonious...

2 layers of eyeshadow applied wet.

...but they aren't. I don't know if my skin is some kind of freaky mutant color-changing thing or what, but that creamy, frosty highlight shade turned in to a matte yellowy color on my eyelids. The browns were a little more true to color, but quite sheer, even when applied wet. The navy, which I was super-excited to try, actually ended up being an uber-dry, patchy mess, and I had to dip my angled liner brush in to the pan over a dozen times just to get a little color along my lash line. Overall, this palette made my eyes look drab, and each shade is way more trouble than it's worth.

Both of these palettes work best if you use your fingers to apply and blend the shadow, which is a tad annoying for those of us who like to mix it up with a variety of tools. However, Tahiti is far better than Vienna, and so I have to rate them separately.

RATING, TAHITI: 4 out of 5.

RATING, VIENNA: 1 out of 5.

Also, a sloppy FOTD! I had to rush out the door to get to the vet, so I look a hot mess, but at least my lipstick is fierce!

BASE: MAC Face & Body in N1 + White, Clinique Airbrush concealer in 01 Fair

EYES: Too Faced Shadow Insurance, Prestige My Biggest Lashes mascara, La Femme pencil in Taupe, Cargo Color Palette in Vienna

CHEEKS: Jane Blushing Cheeks in Blushing Earth Sheer [semi-D/C]

LIPS: NYX lipliner in Auburn, Chanel Rouge Allure Laque in Dragon [D/C]