Milani Caribbean Sea Runway Eyeshadow
Milani Runway Eyeshadow: Caribbean Sea
Milani Caribbean Sea Runway Eyeshadow ($5.99 for 0.07 oz.) is such a pretty shade of aqua blue… if you use it wet. When used dry, it’s rather lackluster and almost takes on a greenish cast; it’s also on the sheer side. However, add just a touch of fixing spray or water to your brush before picking up the shadow yields a much more intense, pigmented shade of lightened aqua blue. You’ll need to pack on the color, rather than sweep on, to get the best results. It’s not a great eyeshadow, but it’s workable when wet.
Check out my original review for my thoughts on the packaging.
If you want to know more about how products are evaluated, read out Rating System FAQ! 
- Product: 23/30
- Value: 8/10
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Packaging: 2/5
RECOMMENDATION: Color eyeshadow fiends should probably pass, just because it’s nowhere near as pigmented as many top brands for color–but if you just want to play around and experiment with color, this is an affordable way to do so.
AVAILABILITY: Cherry Culture
Milani Beach Sand Runway Eyeshadow
Milani Runway Eyeshadow: Beach Sand
Milani Beach Sand Runway Eyeshadow ($5.99 for 0.07 oz.) is a sheer, barely-there patina gold with a metallic shimmer-sheen. It really is rather sheer when applied dry, but it does intensify when used wet. However, this is a shade that can easily be used for that quick, two-minute eye look that adds a little dazzle to the lids without having to spend much time on it. Just a quick swipe and you’re out the door–it’s one of those kinds of shades. By itself, it doesn’t stay on for more than a couple of hours, but over a base, it worked just fine.
Check out my original review for my thoughts on the packaging.
If you want to know more about how products are evaluated, read out Rating System FAQ!
- Product: 22/30
- Value: 8/10
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Packaging: 2/5
RECOMMENDATION: If you’re just looking for an affordable option for a one-and-done kind of eyeshadow, Beach Sand might work for you.
AVAILABILITY: Cherry Culture
Napoleon Perdis Air Prismatic Eyeshadow Quad
Napoleon Perdis Prismatic Eyeshadow Quads
Several months ago, I swatched four of Napoleon Perdis Prismatic Eyeshadow Quads
($35.00 for 0.47 oz.). I always meant to post a look using one of them, but I never got around to it. Usually, when I test out products, I put a whole smattering of various products on my face and do partial looks but nothing one would really want to be seen wearing… (One eye has one set of eyeshadows while the other might be testing mascara and liner… and don’t even get me started on mismatching cheeks, LOL!) So even though I may not have an actual full look to show you, I did put these through the rigors I normally put eyeshadows through.
I actually thought these were a lot more affordable than they were; I had classified them as drugstore–but to the contrary! The packaging feels a little cheap to me–it’s clear acrylic with visible, gold hinges. Each palette also includes two sponge-tipped applicators that look as cheap as they feel. For $35, the packaging really leaves a lot to be desired. The eyeshadows are textured with a “wave” shape (see the photos–it’s visible!).
- AIR features a rather spring-y palette of muted sunshine gold, baby pink with silver sheen, frosted lilac with silver shimmer, and silvered brown. I found this one a little on the sheerer side, which is partially owed to the colors themselves as they’re on the lighter end of the spectrum. All four had very frosty finishes to me, though.
- EARTH includes a dark navy blue with a satin-shimmer finish, subtly yellow-tinged green with muted gold shimmer, sheer seafoam green with soft gold sheen, and lightened peachy orange with peach sheen and shimmer. The blue shade swatched beautifully, but the other three shades were a little on the sheerer side, with the seafoam green shade being notably lacking in pigmentation.
- FIRE has a darkened orange-copper with a shimmered sheen, medium-dark beige with champagne shimmer, medium-dark violet purple with a blacker base, and a high-sheen pinkish white. I found this quad to be the most pigmented; all four shades went on really smoothly and vibrantly.
- WATER contains a sheer, shimmery white, cool-toned gray-cast brown with silver shimmer, glowing periwinkle blue with teal sheen, and light, frosted pink with subtle blue undertones. The periwinkle shade is so pretty, and I don’t have anything quite like it, but the white and pink shades were rather sheer.
Even though at first glance, these palettes seemed really pretty, I wasn’t fond of their textures nor color payoff. They’re incredibly soft, but they veer on powdery, which makes them difficult to work with. You really have to pack on the color, and inevitably, you’ll need to clean up the noticeable fall out that lands on your under eye area. A few shades were nicely pigmented but many fell short–a little sheer, which may also be a result of the powdery formula.
For $35, I wouldn’t put it towards these palettes. You just can’t make the justification of affordability for the reduction in quality here, because this is under the Napoleon Perdis label (rather than NP Set, which is sold at Target), which is “high-end.” There is a decent amount of eyeshadow in each palette, so it’s a shame that the formula doesn’t have that wow factor.
If you want to know more about how products are evaluated, read out Rating System FAQ!
- Product: 20/30
- Value: 8/10
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Packaging: 3/5
RECOMMENDATION: I don’t recommend these unless you find them on sale. Each palette has one or two interesting shades in it, but the quality is just so-so with rather soft, rather powdery textures and less pigmentation than I’d expect for a high-end brand.
AVAILABILITY: ULTA
CoverGirl Blazing Blues
Still Hunting for Drugstore Brights
CoverGirl Blazing Blues Eyeshadow Trio ($5.19 for 0.14 oz.) looked like a promising trio of bright, vibrant eyeshadows. Several years ago, you would have been hard-pressed to find any bright eyeshadows, let alone a whole trio of them! It’s definitely great to see that drugstore brands have stepped things up and started putting out more fun, bold, and bright shades. However, it’s too bad that the pigmentation is still sorely lacking.
After building up four or five layers of color, I was able to get decent color pay off, but it took more work than it should have. The trio contains a medium-dark blue with a low level sheen, banana yellow with a soft frost finish, and an aqua-blue with silver sheen. Personally, I was hoping that the yellow might be a MAC Going Bananas dupe, but it’s so faint, it’s difficult to compare the two. The worst shade in the trio was the aqua-blue, because even after attempting to build up the intensity of the shade, it still looked sheer and washed out.
In terms of texture, these eyeshadows were a little chalky and powdery–not delectably smooth and buttery at all.
If you want to know more about how products are evaluated, read out Rating System FAQ!
- Product: 19/30
- Value: 8/10
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Packaging: 4/5
RECOMMENDATION: If you like your brights on the sheerer side, then CoverGirl’s Blazing Blues Trio might be more up your alley. But if you want your eyeshadows to be true-to-color, soft, and smooth, look elsewhere.
AVAILABILITY: Drugstore.com
Aveda Aqua Pearl Eyeshadow
Pretty in the Pan; Not So Much on Skin
After being really happy with Aveda’s Golden Jasper Eye Color Trio, I knew I had to try some of the other eyeshadow trios. I decided to go with Aqua Pearl ($22.00 for 0.08 oz.), which looked like a pretty trio of yellow, muted green, and a green-teal. Unfortunately, the eyeshadows themselves are a far cry from what they look like in the pan. I didn’t experience the same soft, melts-on-skin feeling as I did with Golden Jasper. Aqua Pearl was incredibly sheer and all three shades looked muted when swatched. I did like that they weren’t powdery, and they did apply smoothly for the most part–just very, very different than they look in the pan.
I do still like that the eyeshadow trio is packaged in 100% post-consumer recycled plastic and paper, and the eyeshadow itself doesn’t contain talc, mineral oil, or parabens.
If you want to know more about how products are evaluated, read out Rating System FAQ!
- Product: 20/30
- Value: 8/10
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Packaging: 4/5
RECOMMENDATION: I would definitely pass on this shade unless you want something very sheer that doesn’t ever get to be intense.
AVAILABILITY: Aveda
Tarina Tarantino Eye Dream Hypershadow
($19.00 for 0.09 oz.) is a range of twenty-four eyeshadows from neutral to bold and everything in-between. I was particularly impressed with the size of the range, just because it seemed quite large for a first launch.
Available shades: Amulet (deep moss green with green micro glitter), Baby Sparkle (pale pink with silver glitter), Bangle (bronzed gold shimmer), Beaded (dark maroon shimmer), Bow (matte hot pink), Brooch (dark chocolate with gold and green micro glitter), Butterfly Black (matte black), Chain (smoky gray shimmer), Cord (warm cocoa with gold micro glitter), Crimp (matte ivory), Cuff (light golden shimmer), Facet (peachy beige with iridescent glitter), Headband (pink beige shimmer), Hoop (bright yellow gold shimmer), Memento (dark lapis blue with blue micro glitter), Organza (mother of pearl shimmer), Pave (dark purple with iridescent glitter), Peacock Pearl (bright turquoise shimmer), Ribbon (intense lavender with magenta micro glitter), Rivet (rich plum shimmer), Stick Pin (golden beige shimmer), Sweetzer (bright jade with silver glitter), Trim (light brown with gold micro glitter), and Trinket (pale gray with iridescent glitter).
I’ve been hanging onto this review for about two months. I did all my pre-review work for Ribbon all the way in early February, but I was unimpressed with the shade, and I wasn’t sure if perhaps it was just a dud in the line-up, since there were so many. I tried Stickpin at the end of March, and it gave me a little hope, but since the Sephora V.I.B. sale as right around the corner, I figured I’d try two more shades. I think it’s kind of obvious that I really wanted to like these, ha!
- Ribbon is a matte, darkened lavender/lilac. It’s supposed to have magenta micro glitter, but I didn’t see it translate when swatched. I could see it in the pan, but it never transferred when I used it. It’s a dusty, chalky matte shade that doesn’t blend easily. It kind of just sits there.
- Stick Pin is a yellowed golden peach with a frosty shimmer sheen. This one felt a little dusty, but it was only slightly. Overall, it had a smooth feel and look while still being pigmented. Way better than Ribbon!
- Peacock Pearl is a bright blue. I’m not sure why it seems like companies are calling things turquoise/teal when they’re really not so much. This has the same texture and finish as Stick Pin, so it was smooth, soft, and had a lightly frosted sheen. It wasn’t as pigmented as I’d like or expect, though. It took a little layering to get truly bright color.
- Sweetzer is a medium grassy green with silver glitter. It’s more like a matte green base topped with an overlay of silver micro glitter. The glitter isn’t overdone, but it doesn’t stick too well in the shadow, so there is some fall out.
After trying four different shades, I won’t be buying any more myself. Two of the shades I tried (Ribbon and Sweetzer) have a more matte finish with glitter on top, while the other two shades I tried (Stick Pin and Peacock Pearl) had a more frosty/shimmery finish. The more shimmery the finish, the better the eyeshadow seemed to be, overall–it was smoother, not chalky or powdery, and it had decent pigmentation.
However, these eyeshadows are advertised to utilize “the maximum pigment load, 20-50% more pigment with less binder.” They’re less pigmented than other mainstream brands known for their brights (e.g. MAC, Make Up For Ever, and Urban Decay), and their texture doesn’t make them any more desirable.
They’re difficult to blend–even the shimmers, not as difficult as the more matte shades, but noticeably off–and I found that they seemed to fade. I had to pack on the color to get it vibrant, but I felt like it just kept disappearing on me after several minutes passed. (You can see the look I did with Peacock Pearl & Sweetzer here.) I had no troubles with them wearing for hours without creasing (over a base, of course!), but the fading was really a huge disappointment. Again, the shimmery finishes held up better and faded less than the more matte shades.
It’s such a shame, because they are beautifully packaged and you do get a lot for your money (these are a little cheaper than Make Up For Ever by the ounce). I also love how each eyeshadow comes in a pink satchet with an “intro to my line” card by Tarina. They’re just nice details to see done. You’re better off grabbing some Make Up For Ever Eyeshadows, since they’re the same price (you get 0.08 oz. instead, though) and the quality is much, much better.
I feel like they’re almost a poor quality eyeshadow you find at the drugstore, rather than a high-end eyeshadow that costs $19 a pop. It’s not the worst eyeshadow I’ve tried, but it’s nowhere near a high-quality eyeshadow, particularly for high-end. What saves the overall rating from falling into D/F range is that they are a good value (in terms of quantity/price) and the packaging is adorable–but the product itself is an D-.
If you want to know more about how products are evaluated, read out Rating System FAQ!
- Product: 18/30
- Value: 9/10
- Ease of Use: 4/5
- Packaging: 5/5
Recommendation: I would swatch in-store before buying, if it’s possible. Otherwise, stick to the shades with “shimmer” as the finish, rather than matte or anything with “micro glitter,” for your best bet. If you want a Tarina Tarantino piece of makeup in your stash, I’d recommend the Eye Dream Hyperliners instead.
Availability: Sephora
