I've bought countless Lush bubble bars over the years, and I think I like the Fun products even better. Fun is pliable and much less crumbly, which makes it easier to use and store. Better still, Fun is about as economical as Lush gets: a package (roll? bar? tube? log? whatever) is about the same price as most of the bubble bars, but over twice the size. You could easily get six or more baths out of one thing of Fun. Given the different price and formula, I was worried Fun's bubble production would be lackluster, but it turns out to be pretty good. I'm not sure if it's exactly as bubbly as the bars, but I wasn't disappointed. Certainly more bubbly than a lot of liquid bubble baths on the market. The 4-in-1 claim is probably more of a novelty than anything: I doubt it'd last as long as bar soap, and I'd be hesitant to wash my hair with it. It's a good option if you like to soap yourself up during a bubble bath - some soaps seem to kill bubbles. I only wish Lush would call this stuff something else. What is it: a soap, a bar, a goo? A fun?
I wouldn't think of using this on my face, except in the dead of winter - it's too thick and heavy. But it's wonderful for hands, feet, and body. It absorbs quickly and doesn't feel greasy, and my skin is soft hours later. The fragrance is wonderful, and what keeps me coming back for more: it's a soft, classic floral. The "vintage" and "retro" descriptions are right on. The scent is very light and stays close to the skin, not something that gets "did someone just put on lotion?" remarks in a five-yard radius. I carry a little tin of this in my bag. It's not the most convenient packaging for applying on the go, and I worry that it'll accidentally pop open, but I like that I can get every last bit out, and the small tins have a lot of reuse potential.
I can't compare SV to other fast-dry topcoats, so I couldn't tell you which brand is the best, but SV is definitely very good. I no longer have to worry about dinging my polish for half an hour. And it makes everything so smooth and shiny! It's not a five-star product, though, because it thickens over time. Once you get down to the last quarter of the bottle, it's unusably goopy. Thinner might revive it if you use a LOT of it. Given the quick-drying nature of SV, the goopening is probably inevitable, but it's still annoying.
This is the first polish I've bought a backup bottle of. It's full of iridescent mylar flakes with a yellowish-pinkish flash and a blue undertone. If you've ever opened a gift bag or basket with that clear iridescent plasticky stuff, it's a lot like that. It's intended as a topcoat, and looks especially pretty over light blue or purple polishes. The flakes are larger and thicker than other flakie polishes (e.g. Essie Shine of the Times or the Zoya Fleck Effects), and as a result don't always lay perfectly flat on the nail. I've had no problem with it, but others might.
Oh, thank goodness I'm not the only person who got incurable greasiness with this conditioner. The first time, I assumed I'd somehow forgotten to rinse. The second time, I figured I'd just have to rinse *better.* The third time, I wised up: you can rinse your hair until it squeaks and still get the greasies the next day. And why does it contain corn starch? If this is Garnier's attempt at creating a "greener," less wasteful product, they've utterly failed, because the rest of this is going in the garbage.
Conditioner -Garnier - Triple Nutrition Conditioner
KatieSix 4/17/2012 2:10:00 PM
Now with amodimethicone! I'd been using this conditioner for years, but it was recently reformulated. I tried the only cone-free conditioner Garnier has left (Pure Clean) and, well, let's just say it'll get its own unflattering review.
A huge disappointment. A little bit of sweetness, but no creaminess. And a LOT of the plasticky off-odor you smell in cheap chocolate fragrances.
This color is just gorgeous. It's a luminous, voluptuous red that's very slightly on the magenta side, rather than being a scarlet or brick red. Ruby, as the previous reviewers described it, is a spot-on description, though the color reminds me more of red rose petals. There's a touch of reddish shimmer in the color - enough to make it vibrant and complex, not "frosty." I normally shy away from lipsticks, particularly bright ones, but I feel both glamorous and completely at ease in this color. Absolutely worth a try whether or not you're a red lipstick wearer.
To my eye, this is identical to Say Yeah eyeshadow (which, in turn, is apparently very similar to Melon pigment and Gleam, but I have neither of those and can't compare). If you have any of those, it's really up to you whether you want the same color in a Paint Pot... but if you don't, it's a gorgeous color that's worth a try. It's a shimmery peach-gold that seems like it would flatter a lot of different skintones, and would likely go well with most pink, gold, peach, or coral shades. The paint pots are far easier to use than MAC's regular paints, and what I especially like about Rubenesque is that it's easy to apply just a sheer layer or build it up to a bright, gleaming finish. It would make a good base for more complex looks, but I can also sweep just a tiny bit across my eyelids and bring out the green of my eyes without looking made-up.
I'm not sure I'd buy it for a guy, and I'm not sure I could successfully convince any guy I know to wear it, but I probably wouldn't mind smelling it on a guy. On me, though? I love it. It's sweet and sugary without being overly cloying - a little darker and sexier than the average foody fragrance. I'd recommend it if you like the idea of gourmand fragrances but can't wear one for more than five minutes.
No marshmallow whatsoever. It's actually kind of fruit-scented. It's a good gloss, and I would give it a good rating otherwise, but let's be honest: the only reason anyone would consider buying it over any other lip gloss is its marshmallow flavor -- which it doesn't have! Disappointing.
I have the Chicago shade - lavender in the tube, sheer on my lips. Not sticky, but I think I detect a tiny bit of graininess, maybe? It's got a nice, subtle mintiness and isn't sticky, but the taste is repellent, like plasticky soap. I'm normally not bothered by glosses that are "perfumey" instead of flavored, but this is just that bad. It's not the worst product ever, but I wouldn't recommend it due to the price and the smell/taste. Most drugstore lip glosses are as good or better.
Lotions/ Creams -Gold Bond - Ultimate Healing Skin Therapy Lotion
KatieSix 8/10/2006 5:51:00 PM
Best. Lotion. Ever. Perfect consistency: neither runny nor greasy. It absorbs quickly, and it really works! The scent is barely noticeable. This and Palmer's Cocoa Butter are the only lotions I will ever buy from now on.
Styling Products -Garnier - Fructis Sleek and Shine Weightless Anti-Frizz Serum
KatieSix 8/10/2006 4:09:00 PM
Great stuff. It smells great, it's not greasy, and even my friends who hate styling their hair swear by it. Not only that, but it's one of the best bargains out there - you get more for your buck than any serum on the market that I know of. Highly recommended.
No better or worse than any other serum I've tried. I don't see what distinguishes this from the million drugstore serums out there, except for the price tag. (...As an aside, I hate the word "serum." It just sounds gross.)