MAC x Mariah Carey You've Got Me Feeling Blush Review, Photos, Swatches
You've Got Me Feeling
MAC Sweet Sweet Fantasy Blush ($24.00 for 0.21 oz.) is a bright, medium fuchsia pink with cool, blue undertones and a satin finish. The texture was incredibly stiff, which made it a challenge to get product off of the pan’s surface just to swatch–I had to scrape at it to dislodge powder and get enough to show up on my skin at all.
I used a paper towel to rub against the surface to break it down further, which helped to a small degree, but it was not one of MAC’s best showings–and they can do a bright pink like this! Unsurprisingly, it was hard to diffuse and blend out the edges, as the color adhered strongly wherever it initially landed but did not want to spread from there. The finish was glowing without being overtly shimmery, and if you work with it long enough, it can look nice on. This shade started to fade after seven and a half hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- MAC Pink Swoon (P, $24.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Milani Delizioso Pink (10) (DC, $7.99) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Olive (LE, $8.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Makeup Geek Hanky Panky (DC, $9.99) is darker (90% similar).
- theBalm Down Boy (P, $21.00) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- LORAC Unashamed (LE, ) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- NYX Flamingo (DC, $5.00) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Cool (Winter 2016) Blush (LE, $60.00) is darker, more muted, warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Quickie (DC, $26.00) is less shimmery, lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop Mochi (DC, $8.00) is less shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
Formula Overview
$24.00/0.21 oz. - $114.29 Per Ounce
Per the brand, the formula is supposed to "provide fantastic colour with ease and consistency" that "applies evenly, adheres lightly to skin." There are five distinct finishes within the range: Frost ("iridescent, lightly shimmering color"), Matte ("flat, matte finish... builds well"), Satin ("adds subtle highlights to the skin"), Sheertone ("sheer-on micro-refined powder ... that goes on faint"), and Sheertone Shimmer ("just enough shimmer to make light dance on your cheeks"). Their permanent blushes are available in compact form as well as pan-only (the latter will be cheaper).
The following overview has been updated to reflect the most current iteration of the brand's permanent range (whether or not there's been any official change) as I repurchased the majority of the permanent shades as of June 2018. I make a point to say that because I felt that the textures of several shades, particularly the frost finish shades, was noticeably different; they were much smoother and had more slip but were less shimmery/frosted (on average) and seemed to be a bit weaker in pigmentation (but still buildable). Some of the mattes felt like I've encountered in the past (a little drier, pigmented, and fairly blendable), while some felt more velvety and finely-milled.
MAC has a solid blush range but some shades are harder than others to blend out or diffuse, and as it does for most formulas (from any brand), it really comes down to some shades falling shy of expectations. The matte finish had a tendency to darken on my skin within five minutes of application; for most shades, I would recommend applying over a powdered face and/or avoiding applying on still-drying complexion products to make blending the easiest. The matte shades seemed to be semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, and long-wearing (about eight hours).
Only a few of the shades in the permanent range seemed to be particularly frosted/metallic on the skin; most shades that had shimmer appeared more softly luminous or pearlescent on the skin to the point where there was little sheen/reflection captured by my camera (I did a double take for a few and re-did swatches only to find the same finish captured yet again!). The Sheertone Shimmer performed most consistently with this: very subtle sheen, more "my skin but better" with having a slightly more noticeable sheen than matte. There were a few shades that had a strong sheen on the skin (like Peachykeen), though. The Frost finish just seemed to have stronger, larger shimmer in it, but the effect on the skin ranged being subtle to moderate. The same was true with Satin--some were more satin-like and some seemed more like a Frost (like Modern Mandarin).
Most shades were blendable, while pigmentation varied from sheer to opaque depending on the shade, but most had decent, builable coverage. The textures were firmer than the average powder blush of current times, but they don't have excess product kicked up in the pan at all. The wear ranged between seven and nine hours with deeper, intense mattes (like Fever or Film Noir) lasted longer.
Browse all of our MAC Powder Blush swatches.
Ingredients
TALC, OCTYLDODECYL STEAROYL STEARATE, ZINC STEARATE, ISOSTEARYL NEOPENTANOATE, TOCOPHERYL ACETATE, CAPRYLYL GLYCOL, HEXYLENE GLYCOL, PHENOXYETHANOL. MAY CONTAIN: SILICA, MICA, TITANIUM DIOXIDE (CI 77891), IRON OXIDES (CI 77491, CI 77492, CI 77499), BISMUTH OXYCHLORIDE (CI 77163), BLUE 1 LAKE (CI 42090), CARMINE (CI 75470), CHROMIUM HYDROXIDE GREEN (CI 77289), CHROMIUM OXIDE GREENS (CI 77288), FERRIC FERROCYANIDE (CI 77510), MANGANESE VIOLET (CI 77742), RED 6 (CI 15850), RED 6 LAKE (CI 15850), RED 7 LAKE (CI 15850), RED 28 LAKE (CI 45410), RED 30 LAKE (CI 73360), ULTRAMARINES (CI 77007), YELLOW 5 LAKE (CI 19140), YELLOW 6 LAKE (CI 15985).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
SUCH a pretty colour – what a shame it’s so bad. I have a LE cheek palette from the Tartan Tale collection with Dame in it and it’s the same – NOTHING comes off unless I scrape up the surface with my fingernail. I know the regular version of Dame isn’t like this and it is so frustrating.
It’s so painful when products are like that, because you have to wonder how it got approved in the first place!
IMO shade is not unique enough to want to work hard to blend a $24 blush. I’ll be passing.
I totally agree, Michele!
what a shame! do you think you got a dud? this is one of the items I plan to stalk Mac for!
My policy isn’t to give brands the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like that, so no, I wouldn’t assume I got a dud!
Aw, disappointed by this one. But it’s all good, I had my eyes on the coral one anyway 🙂
Awww!
i really hate stiff blushes so this one is absolutely a pass !
Me too, Claire! Especially for bolder/darker shades.
It’s a shame the performance is so poor, because this is such a pretty color! I wonder what went on with MAC’s QC and this release…
It’s not as good as I was hoping! I feel so bad!
Such a shame, as it’s such a pretty color. I’m hoping you got some wonky press sample, but who knows.
Thank you for the review. I was going to go for this one. Oh well
This is truly sad. Alot of us were looking forward to this collection and the quality is blah. These bad blushes got to go.
I feel soooo bad! 🙁
Being that I have Pink Swoon from the Flamingo Park collex, and that’s as pale a pink as I can go, I will easily and happily skip this one here! What a shame that this one is so stiff and difficult to work with, though, because a satin finish pink would have been great.
Pink Swoon is close enough for sure! 🙂
I do like the shade, But yikes that quality!!!!
I’m so sad for cool toned makeup lovers! This could have been so pretty on them!!
Me too, Shannon! 🙁
Such a bummer to hear about the texture!! They do colours ike these really well – could it be a bad batch?
Hard to say without more of them to test!
Such a nice color in the pan… 🙁 The names are killing me though.