We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!
  • Saks10% OFF Sitewide, including Beauty & Fragrance, with code SAKS10OFF, ends 2/25.
  • UltaPlatinum perk! Check your monthly Ultimate Rewards statement for a 20% off entire purchase coupon, ends 2/25.

Chanel Premier Regard Eyeshadow Quad

Chanel Premier Regard Eyeshadow Quad
Chanel Premier Regard Eyeshadow Quad

Chanel Premier Regard Eyeshadow Quad ($58.00 for 0.24 oz.) consists of four shades, which the brands describes as “taupe brown, tender pink, beige, and intense black.”

The first shade is a lightly gray-tinted medium-dark brown with subtle coppery-brown micro-shimmer over a satiny sheen. It has good color payoff, and it applies smoothly and evenly. MAC Superwatt is similar but more metallic, lighter, and warmer. MAC Omega is a smidgen lighter. theBalm Celebrational is grayer. Inglot #342 is grayer, darker, and matte. Urban Decay Midnight Rodeo is more shimmery.

Beside the taupe shade, there’s a pale, light pink with subtle yellow undertones and decent color payoff–but it’s powdery. It blends out easily but almost to nothing, so you have to pack it on and then only blend out the edges with care. This color barely shows up on me (I’m about medium in color). MAC Sugar Snack is a several shades darker. NARS Douce France is a smidgen whiter. Bare Escentuals Giddy is a little darker.

Next, we have a pale golen peach with a satiny sheen. It has decent pigmentation but also has some powderiness, like the pink shade, that made it easy to blend but it was also easy to make it disappear. Dolce & Gabbana Cocoa is similar but matte. Inglot #328 is identical as far as I can tell. Inglot #330 is lighter.

The final shade is a dark black with a subtle cool-brown base and a matte finish. It has good color payoff, and it is rather intense. I used it very, very lightly with an extremely fluffy brush so that it would not overwhelm the other shades in the quad. The color compares favorably with blacks like theBalm Serious and MAC Carbon.

I love a good neutral quad. Chanel’s Kaska Beige and Beiges de Chanel are two of my favorites. I was kind of hoping that this might be in that vein; something gorgeous and subtle and neutral but effortlessly flattering. I think on some complexions, this might sing a bit louder than it did for me. It just washes together, and the textures were more powdery than anticipated. It has something to do with the two pale shades in the quad being paired with something nearly black that makes it a lot more stark and less simple to use.  I wore all four shades together, and they were mostly intact after eight hours; the two lighter colors were a little faded, but the darker shades looked the same as they did initially.

Chanel Premier Regard Eyeshadow Quad

B
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
9
Longevity
4
Application
84%
Total

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow

Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow
Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow

Chanel Eclaire Ombre Essentielle / Soft Touch Eyeshadow ($28.50 for 0.05 oz.) is described as “sheer gold.” It’s a pale yellow gold with a soft, frosted metallic sheen. theBalm Snobby is similar but a smidgen yellower. Bare Escentuals Aspire is more orange. theBalm Wild Child is lighter. Urban Decay Eldorado is a hair yellower. Buxom Poodle is lighter. Giorgio Armani #1 Madreperla is a bit more orange-toned. Giorgio Armani #18 is similar but a bit paler.

Gah! Chanel! Of all the shades you label as “sheer,” this one? It’s not sheer! What kind of madness are you trying to create? Furtif was sheer. This is pigmented! Opaque! Rich in color! It might be a soft shade, but there’s not much underlying sheerness. The texture is silky-smooth, ultra-finely milled, so you could certainly sheer it out, but it packs a a fair dosage of color without having to pack it on. On the lid, it’s pretty pigmented; not totally opaque, but it’s close. It blends out easily, because it’s so soft, resulting in a smidgen of powderiness.

When I wore it, there was very light fading after eight hours along the lash line and outer edge, but it was mostly intact and there was no creasing to be seen.  It has the same look, feel, and resulting shimmer/sparkle of Complice, which was a beautiful color for all over the lid.  If Chanel hadn’t used the word “sheer” to describe this, it’d be just as good. It’s a little too pigmented to be sheer–you shouldn’t have to barely touch the pan of color to get sheer color!

Chanel Ombre Essentielle Soft Touch Eyeshadow Eclaire
Eclaire
Eclaire
9
Product
8
Pigmentation
9.5
Texture
9
Longevity
4.5
Application
89%
Total

Giorgio Armani #24 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow

Giorgio Armani #24 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow
Giorgio Armani #24 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow

Falling in Love Once More with Eyes to Kill Intense

Giorgio Armani #24 Eyes to Kill Intense Eyeshadow ($32.00 for 0.14 oz.) is a blackened olive with olive gold and soft copper shimmer. It kind of looks green at certain angles. Bare Escentuals Speaker Box is greener. Estee Lauder Cyber Green is cooler-toned, darker. theBalm Wocka, Wocka is more olive. Inglot #419 is greener, less brown. Bobbi Brown Black Gold is browner, cooler-toned, with no green. Urban Decay Cobra is less intense and less shimmery. Urban Decay Darkhorse is browner but seemed the closest overall. If you want to compare this against other shades of Eyes to Kill Intense, check out this gallery. It was like a darker, blackened version of #14 to me.

The first time I tried this formula, I was beyond impressed. I fell in love! While there are lots of products I love and like, I don’t fall head-over-heels-in-love with formulas all. the. time. I’m one of those people who find it hard to pick favorites! Anyway, huge fan of the formula, love lots of shades, but a few of the more recent released shades have left me a little cold. Not that they were awful, they just weren’t as excellent.

Ahh, but #24 kicks off the new set of six Eyes to Kill Intense shades with a bang! It’s decidedly complex with a delicious mix of khaki, olive, green, brown, copper, and brown. It’s a shade that will change based on what you pair it with; pair it with strong greens, it’ll pull out the green tones, but pair it with a bronze, and you’ll see the copper shimmer surface.  I was thrilled that I was finally seeing a more nuanced shade.  I think the formula is fantastic, but the price point is painful, so the more original the color, the softer that blow to the wallet is.

I tested #24 for sixteen hours, and it was pristine. I wore a few of these in Vegas, in 110-115 degree heat, walking around, no primer, and they were still immaculate–no fading, creasing, fallout, or the like. This particular shade has excellent color payoff wet and really good pigmentation dry; it takes on a more metallic finish and looks more green than brown when it is used damp/wet.  The texture is soft, finely milled, but buttery and dense. It’s tightly compacted loose powder that almost feels like it still has some moisture in it.  For those who haven’t seen past posts, the texture and feel are similar to L’Oreal Infallibles (L’Oreal also owns Giorgio Armani, FYI!) – the color ranges have seemed to be more different than the same, which is great if you love the formula – more shades to have!

Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense Waterproof Eyeshadow #24
#24
#24
10
Product
10
Pigmentation
10
Texture
10
Longevity
5
Application
100%
Total

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow (Part 2)

MAC Highly Charged Electric Cool Eyeshadow
MAC Highly Charged Electric Cool Eyeshadow

Breakdown of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow – Part 2

The last six shades of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow ($18.50 for 0.07 oz.) that we’re going to go through are: Highly Charged (rich purple with pink pearl), Infra-violet (mid-tone pink violet with blue pearl), Love Power (soft shimmering rose), Pure Flash (pale champagne), Superwatt (light shimmering taupe), and Switch to Blue (rich cobalt). Please read my review for how these feel, wear, etc.

  • Highly Charged is a subtly red-toned medium-dark purple with a soft shimmer-sheen. It has so-so color payoff and some fading issues when worn. All of these only faded to a point, they didn’t disappear, but they weren’t as vibrant on as they were in the pan. Buxom Schnauzer is more of an eggplant purple. MAC Drawn to Drama is more blue-based. L’Oreal Perpetual Purple is brighter by a small amount. MAC Plush is softer, more red-toned. Make Up For Ever #142 is very similar in color though more matte in finish.
  • Infra-violet is a vibrant fuchsia-magenta with a violet iridescence. It has decent color payoff, and it actually performs better on the lid in terms of pigmentation–it has some very slight fading over time. Make Up For Ever #89 is more magenta. Both Urban Decay Fishnet and MAC Stars ‘n Rockets are less pink, more purple. Bare Escentuals Boudoir is very similar though has less iridescence.
  • Love Power is a pale pink with subtle yellow undertones and a highly metallic finish. This had beautiful color payoff when I swatched it, but I couldn’t get it to apply evenly at all. It was the worst on the lid out of all twelve. MAC Young Venus is paler, icier. Dior Garden Roses is similar but blue-based. MAC Taupeless is similar but frostier. MAC Seedy Pearl is cooler-toned. Inglot #431 is more metallic.
  • Pure Flash is a soft peach with warm undertones and a frost-metallic shimmer-sheen. It’s semi-opaque in color. This would be a great brightening shade on light to medium complexions. Buxom Collie looks exactly the same in color, but it has a more metallic finish (less sparkle, more sheen). NARS Ramatuelle is similar, possibly lighter. Tarina Tarantino Delightful is more metallic.
  • Superwatt is a subtly gray-tinged medium-dark brown with a frosted, metallic finish. It had good color payoff and applied easily to the lid without needing a lot of packing or manipulating. Buxom Mutt is warmer, more golden. Urban Decay Rehab is slightly darker. MAC Street Cool is darker. Urban Decay Midnight Rodeo is a bit warmer, browner. Inglot #402 is very similar, perhaps a touch darker.
  • Switch to Blue is a medium-dark blue with softer blue shimmer and a satiny sheen. It’s mostly opaque but there is some underlying sheerness. Buxom Bulldog looks very similar, perhaps very slightly purple-tinted. Tarina Tarantino Violet Storm is brighter, more cobalt. Inglot #428 is darker, more intense. Make Up For Ever #81 is darker, more navy blue.
MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow Infra-violet
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
3
Application
81%
Total

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow (Part 1)

MAC Blacklit Electric Cool Eyeshadow
MAC Blacklit Electric Cool Eyeshadow

Breakdown of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow – Part 1

The first six shades of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow ($18.50 for 0.07 oz.) that we’re going to go through are: Blacklit (black with multi-dimensional pearl), Brilliantly Lit (bright acid yellow green), Coil (copper bronze), Dynamo (mid-tone coral), Electroplate (cool gunmetal grey), and Fashion Circuit (bright kelly green). Please read my review for how these feel, wear, etc.

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow (Part 1)

B-
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
3
Application
81%
Total

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Tests

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow
MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow

All That and Then Some on the Matter of Electric Cool Eyeshadows

There are twelve shades of MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow ($18.50 for 0.07 oz.), which is a new formula (though rumor has it is the concept is Big Bounce Eyeshadows reformulated). There’s not a whole lot of information on these; the texture is described as soft and lightweight, it will deliver rich color, there is “sensational blending power,” and has “medium-to-high coverage.” The press release mentioned also wearing it as a wash of color. I think I managed to wear all twelve shades over eight different tests (a mix of with and without primer, different primers).

This post is only the review portion.  There will be two follow-up posts featuring a breakdown of all of the shades along with photos, swatches, possible dupes, and the like.  This post includes 26 photos from the tests I did to see how these applied and wore.

First, I don’t think I’d ever attach Big Bounce to these. From a texture standpoint, they’re nothing alike, and from the way they look and wear, they’re also nothing alike. No more than one eyeshadow to the next, at least. I think it does them a disservice and sets up expectations as being almost leery. When I originally tested out Big Bounce Eyeshadows, the only way I could get them to work was as an eyeshadow base, which meant they had to be set with a powder eyeshadow, and once that happened, they were fine.

The texture of Electric Cool is spongy; it’s more moveable than putty, lighter than sludge. These felt a lot like Buxom Stay-There and Chanel Illusion d’Ombre eyeshadows, both have a spongy, lightweight texture.  Buxom has more spring, as it returns more to its original shape upon pressure, while Electric Cool will just retain whatever shape you mold it into. When I stabbed at one pan with an eyeliner brush, there were all these little burrows where the brush had gone. MAC’s formula is more buildable, overall, compared to Buxom’s (which are supposed to be sheer). There is also a lot of shade overlap between MAC and Buxom’s ranges. Chanel’s formula feels similar but has a slightly wetter feel initially. There is less overlap with Chanel’s color range, but the few that do overlap, Chanel’s seem to have slightly more depth, which is going to be even more negligible once applied.  The texture is completely unlike products like Giorgio Armani Eyes to Kill Intense and L’Oreal Infallible, which are very powder-based products.  You might liken the finish to them, as it has a very shimmery, sparkly end result.

The wear of Electric Cool was hit-and-miss. Some shades performed better than others, as not all shades were as dry or as wet as the next one. These actually don’t crease easily; for the most part, they didn’t crease over time–if there was any creasing, it seemed to happen shortly after application. What I did have problems with was fading–I routinely went back to pack on more product during application. I’d apply one shade to one eye, then apply the same shade to the other eye, and when I went to apply another shade, the original eye already seemed to have faded somewhat. This was particularly true with some of the brighter shades like Dynamo, Fashion Circuit, Highly Charged, and Switch to Blue. I did not experience fall out with the shades when I used them on the lid*; when I tried using Fashion Circuit on the lower lash line, it did have a tendency to migrate downwards.

These have a beautiful finish; it’s very sparkly and shimmery in an interesting way. It’s not frost, not metallic, but a complex combination thereof. I think the neutral shades are exceptionally lovely as a wash of color (and honestly, the best results with this product were when these eyeshadows was worn that way). Some of them play well with others; some really did not want to be in the company of others.

Applying them evenly, smoothly, and opaquely, was more of a challenge. I tried an assortment of brushes and tools, mostly firmer, flat bristled brushes, along with fingertips and sponge-tipped applicators. I liked MAC’s 242 the best, because it is just slightly fluffy at the edge, so it worked well to pat the color into place (and you must pat, don’t sweep, or else it will be a mess) and then using the edge to lightly blend the color into the next one or diffuse it for a wash.

Blending was also an area I found seemed to hurt these rather than help these. When you blend it out, you get left with mostly shimmer and not much; the color seems to bunch up a little, which creates a slightly patchy result. I do want to note that it was hard to see it with my eyes (and even more so from a distance), but it’s obvious in the photos. To blend two colors together, it’s a very gentle process, and you really have to use a light hand to do so.

I liked them best of bare lids, and second to that, over a creamy, opaque primer like MAC Painterly Paint Pot. I tried these over NARS Smudgeproof Primer (awful over this base–made applying the color difficult to get even!), Too Faced Shadow Insurance (better than NARS for these), and MAC Painterly (best results for over a primer). I think the color adheres better over bare lids, but you can get more even color application when used over an opaque base (again, Painterly is what I tested these with). With or without a base, the wear didn’t seem affected.

The biggest problem I had with these had to with packaging.  Six of the twelve shades had loose pans, which meant that the actual metal pan that houses the eyeshadow would fall out of the container if turned upside down–which meant a lot of product was caught on the lid and lip of the product.  Second, despite overnighting these, several had moved significantly during shipment.  They were delivered before noon, and here, it’s only been getting to 80 degrees in the mid-afternoon–it’s not that hot.  The formula isn’t that moveable.  I set several of these on their sides for 48 hours, and they didn’t seem to move away from the edges.

They absolutely can be pushed back into place, but for some of them, it seemed like shrinkage or drying occurred because it didn’t fill the pan when pushed back into place, which leads me to my next point: these are tiny.  For this product category, we have two competitor formulas that are very similar:  Buxom contains 0.12 oz. ($17.00 and comes in a glass jar) and Chanel contains 0.14 oz. ($36.00 and comes in a glass jar).  These come in shiny black screw-top jars with a clear plastic window on top.  I thought it was worth pointing out that MAC has about half as much product as two similar formulas on the market and comes in cheaper packaging.  MAC Paint Pots, for example, contain 0.17 oz. and come in glass jars.  Even MAC Big Bounce was 0.17 oz. and also came in a glass jar (and also $2 cheaper just a year ago).

Overall, I can see some people loving the sparkling, shimmering finish of these eyeshadows. They really can look splendid as the light catches and plays with the dimension of the colors.  They take some work, some practice, and aren’t flawless. I feel like they’re a quirky, finicky product that can work but it has to be worth the effort to the individual who uses them.  If you intended to use them together, they’re hardest to use that way; if you just wanted to use them as a wash of color and don’t need 100% opaque color, they’re a lot easier.  For example, if you wanted a beautiful wash of color, Pure Flash is magic.  No creasing, some fading with the bolder/darker colors, not-so-blendable, and the colors can apply patchy at times (Love Power was the worst; it clung to itself like you wouldn’t believe and made my lid look so crepe-y).

* Any fall out you see in photos of single shades being tested was actually sparkle that didn’t get 100% removed when I removed the multi-shade tests (I would do one test for eight hours, and then I’d remove that and do a second test for eight hours).

MAC Electric Cool Eyeshadow Review, Photos, Tests

B-
8
Product
8.5
Pigmentation
8.5
Texture
8.5
Longevity
3
Application
81%
Total

On Instagram