13th Annual SAG Awards

Celebrities flocked to L.A.'s Shrine Exposition Center this Sunday for the second big awards show of the red carpet season, the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Unlike the Globes, this year everyone looked amazing. In fact, I struggled to come up with my picks for the worst looks of the night. Picking the best looks of the night was a much easier task, so I'll start with those!

Hands down, Mariska Hargitay stole the show for me. She. Looked. So. Good. The smokey eye makeup, neutral lip, and loose tendrils... Perfection. See for yourself!

Reese Witherspoon followed in her own footsteps from the Golden Globes, again donning a knee-length Nina Ricci dress. She complemented her new bangs with a loose and relaxed updo. Again, she's the portrait of understated elegance. So classy!

Also topping my list, just as she did for the Globes, is Jennifer Hudson. Her skin absolutely glows (I'm dying to know what products she used). I'm not wild about her dress, but it sure does show off her curves.

Another dewy faced diva that tops my list is Eva Longoria. I'll come right out and admit my sheer and utter jealousy of her eyelashes. Granted, they're probably fake, but she wears them as if they were her own. And what a glow she has about her. Must be her engagement to Tony Parker that's putting that sparkle in her eye!

Kate Walsh of Grey's Anatomy also tops my list. I love redheads, though admittedly, I wouldn't want to be one, but Kate works her red hair like no one else. I love the pale yellow dress and the berry lip she's rocking - it goes so perfectly with her skin tone. It's tough to work with auburn tresses, but she does it well.

Finally, I once again am totally digging on America Ferrera. She just does it right every time! Again, she's gone with a jewel-tone dress and simple-but-elegant hair. I love the berry lip on her as well - it suits her. I love this girl!

There were so many great looks this year, that I have to at least give out some Honorable Mentions. Here's a shout out to the women who rocked their looks, and due to space (and time), couldn't be included in this post.

Honorable Mentions: Anne Hathaway, Nicolette Sheridan, Cate Blanchett, Sandra Oh, Sara Ramirez, and Terri Hatcher.

Okay. Now for the bad. Like I said, it was tough to be anything but impressed with what I saw, but there were a few women who definitely donned Don't outfits.

First, we've got Debi Mazar from Entourage. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if this is how she looks all the time, but ay yai yai! She looks like a creature from outer space. Scary!

The next victim is Kiersten Warren from Desperate Housewives. I didn't like this woman on the show, and my dislike has continued onto the red carpet. Is that a beehive? She also needs to get her girls to stand a little more, uh, upright, if you know what I mean. Probably not the best choice of necklines.

Next, we have Elizabeth Perkins from Weeds. It's not that she looks bad. I just don't care for it all put together. I think it's a little too matchy-matchy for my taste. The hair nearly matches the dress, which exactly matches the lipstick. I don't think the color is flattering for her as other colors would be.

It looks like I'm having to "pass on grass" this year, as far as the women from Weeds are concerned. Next on my list is Mary Louise Parker. This look is more appropriate for a small child. Her shoes are atrocious, as is the dress. In fact, she looks like a small child in this ensemble.

I love me some Meredith on Grey's Anatomy, but I don't love me some Ellen Pompeo at this year's SAG awards. Her hair looks so severe when it's pulled back so tight. And while I love the stunning color of the dress, the tortoiseshell detailing at the neck is just plain weird. Her makeup, however, looks quite nice.

Finally, I'm having to add Rachel McAdams to the worst looks list. I'd love to sit this girl down and talk to her about the pink hair. It has got to go. I used to dip my hair in Kool-Aid to get that look, back when that look was still cool (I'm talking, like, 1994). I'm praying the pink hair can be attributed to a role she's currently working on; if not, she needs a style intervention.

And finally, I've got to give a special mention to Patricia Arquette, who did a total 180 from the Golden Globes. This time around, she sported a much softer look. The hair color is so much more complementary, and the style is much more elegant. She's toned down the jewelry (that necklace is worth $1 million - I certainly can't turn my nose down at that!), and the dress is flattering. I'm glad she made such a great turnaround. I just wish I had a better picture to show you all.

I'm looking forward to what these stars will come up with next on the red carpet. Next stop, Oscars!

To clump or not to clump? That is the question.

I was cursed with short, sparse eyelashes. It makes little sense to me, because the hair on my head is as thick and long as can be - you'd think some of that fullness could have transferred to my eyelashes. But it didn't, so I'm forced to deal with my lack of eyelashes on a daily basis. Thus, I'm on a constant quest for the miracle mascara that can transform my lashes into long lusciousness.

But my biggest gripe about most of the mascaras that I've tried is that they deposit icky black clumps on my lashes. Yeah, that looks really natural. If I'm trying to hide the fact that I'm lacking in the lash department, a clumpy fringe blows my cover.

That's why I was so excited to try a mascara with the new, "revolutionary" brush that, rather than the typical nylon bristles, has rubber bristles. Such bristles, the companies claim, help deposit the mascara more evenly for fewer clumps.

An answer to my prayers - this was just what I had been looking for. On a weekly Target run, I picked up a tube of Cover Girl's Lash Exact (available at any drugstore for around $6). I, being the product junkie that I am, like to try things out as soon as I get them. So I went home, cleaned off my eye makeup, curled my lashes (which is a must for my feeble fringe), and carefully applied the mascara. I stepped back, looked in the mirror, and voila! My lashes were separated, long, and natural looking! It was, indeed, a miracle!I've been using their mascara ever since. But what I was still lacking when I used the product was volume. I had the long, clump-free lashes of my dreams, but they were still a little puny in the grand scheme of things. I discovered a formula for semi-clump-free, voluminous lashes when I tried layering a second coat of Benefit's BadGal Lash (which gives serious volume, but deposits the typical clumps). It was a workable solution for those nights out when I wanted to make my eyes pop. But it was growing tiresome having to constantly tote two mascaras around.

Then I saw the commercials for Cover Girl's follow-up to Lash Exact: Volume Exact. My prayers were answered! A volume mascara that had the revolutionary anti-clump brush! But would it, could it, work? I turned to one of my most trusted sources for answers: MakeupAlley (MUA). If you love makeup, or even just want some basic questions answered, this website's message board is the perfect place to turn. I posted a question asking for reviews of the mascara. I expected the MUAers to sing its praises, but the responses were less than praiseworthy. Many said that Lash Exact was much better than the new Volume Exact. Some said it was clumpy. And others said it was okay.
Given the mixed reviews, I decided to try for myself. As much as I hate to say it, I'm sorely disappointed. Granted, I've only been using it for two days, and I was in a rush to get ready in the morning both days. Thus, my mascara application time was shorter than usual. Regardless, however, when I put this stuff on, there is very little volume and even some *gasp!* clumping! I'll give it another week with more careful application, but my first impression of this product is that you'd be better off with the original version. Who needs volume when you can happily live clump-free?

Signature Scents...

I'm a fragrance amateur. Olfactorily challenged, if you will. I can't tell you the difference between eau de toilette and eau de parfum. Sandalwood, bergamot, patchouli...I have no idea what these are supposed to smell like. I was not blessed with "the nose," or un nez, as the French say.

But I do know what I like (and what I don't like). On a recent trip to ULTA, I was reminded of a scent I had long forgotten. A scent I discovered on a trip to the French Riviera nearly ten years ago, at a perfume factory called Fragonard. Located in small village called Eze, near the city of Nice, the factory offers tourists a look inside the world of perfumery. The best part, by far, was the fabulous boutique of products at factory prices. We're talking French-milled soaps in glorious scents like freesia, lavender, verbena and honeysuckle, for as little as 3.50 Euro. (FYI, Fragonard also has a factory in Grasse, the perfume capital of the world, as well as a boutique in Paris).

As I was stocking up on soaps, I came across a fragrance that, at the time, was the best smelling fragrance I had ever experienced. It was called Bouquet Marin, and came in a lovely little bottle with a corked top. It wasn't meant to be spritzed on, but rather splashed. The scent (to my novice nose) was fresh and beachy. It was the smell of the ocean captured in a bottle. I was in love.

This fragrance, in the eyes of the great perfumers, was nothing to brag about. I mean, it came in a bottle with a cork - not exactly swanky. But to me, it was perfect. I hate heavy scents, so the lightness of this eau de toilette was perfect. I proudly brought it home with me and wore it every day for a year. It was my signature scent.

As time went by, however, the bottle got pushed to the back of my perfumes and was eventually forgotten - at least until I picked up a perfume at ULTA and was immediately reminded of my former signature scent.
L'eau d'Issey, by Issey Miyake, is described as a "floral-aquatic" fragrance with notes of lotus, freesia, peony and carnation (among others). This perfume is the closest I've ever come to smelling something reminiscent of my once-favorite perfume, except more sophisticated and refined. And although I may have outgrown my former signature scent, I think L'eau d'Issey might be an appropriate replacement. If nothing else, the perfume will remind me of my wonderful trip to France. To be reminded of that every day, particularly in the dreary winter months, is well worth the price.

Globe-a-licious

As you likely know, the 64th annual Golden Globes were held on Monday. In typical award show fashion, the celebs sported an array of looks that ranged from glam to garish.

Topping my list for best look of 2007 is Jennifer Hudson.

I was blown away when I saw her. The berry lip, the shimmery eye - she was right on target with this look. Dreamgirl, indeed!

Next up, I chose Salma Hayek. Her look is the epitome of sultry and smoldering (without being overdone).

Can we please talk about her skin? Flawless!

Reese Witherspoon also had a flawless look. She embodies chic, understated elegance.

I'm such a fan of her new cut. The layers and bangs are perfect!

I was pleasantly surprised by Ali Larter. The Heroes star is undoubtedly gorgeous, but I've never seen her on the red carpet before so I didn't know what to expect from her. But she looked fabulous! Natural, sunny makeup, flowing waves, and an amazing dress reminiscent of a Grecian goddess (which is unfortunately not pictured here).

Another sunny blond who caught my eye was Sheryl Crow. She consistently impresses me on the red carpet, and this event was no exception. Can you believe that she's over 40? She has the skin of a teenager!

Finally, my last favorite look goes to newcomer America Ferrera. Ugly Betty she most certainly is not! I love that she's becoming such an amazing role model for young girls.

Now the fun part - the worst looks of the red carpet!

Jean Smart (who knew she was still coming to these award shows??) takes the cake for the absolute worst look. Ever.

I think she must have gone to Glamour Shots to get this atrocious look. There's no way a Hollywood stylist or makeup artist would have ever created that!

Patricia Arquette is my second runner-up for worst look. You'd think the Medium could have sensed before she left the house that this look was no good.

The hair, the makeup, the jewelry - in my book, none of it works.

Sadly, I also have to give Katherine Heigel low marks - and it kills me to do this, because I think she's phenomenally gorgeous! But I just don't dig her makeup or her hair. The eyes seem a little too smoky, the lips look a little to nude, and the face is a little too bronze. And the hair... I'm not opposed to the 40's era pin-up girl look, but I just don't love it here.

You can't have a "worst looks" list without putting Sienna Miller on it. I think she's a beautiful girl, but I can't get my hands around the fashion and beauty choices she regularly makes.

What, is she channeling Princess Leia?? And this isn't even the worst picture of her from the night.

Next, we have Geena Davis. She's made Blackwell's Worst Dressed list before, and she lived up to that reputation with her Golden Globes look.

The obvious blush and unflattering lip color are what put me off from her look.

Lastly, and this one may cause a lot of disagreement, is Angelina Jolie. Don't get me wrong - she did look good. BUT, I just think she looks a little too Jeri Ryan-esq, circa Star Trek.

A poor comparison, indeed, but the voluminous updo, pouty lips and all-grey garb immediately made me think of this promo photo of Jeri.


All-in-all, however, most celebs were looking beautiful. It was a good year for the Globes.

Put your best face forward...

In keeping with the Smashbox theme (and as promised), I want to talk about Smashbox's Photo Finish Foundation Primer. This stuff is utterly divine - like, we're talking one of the best makeup products on the market.

After you moisturize (which is optional if your skin isn't naturally on the dry side) put a few drops in your palm and smooth it on your face. It's particularly great for your undereye area, and allows your concealer to go on ultra smooth. Once you've been "primed," simply put on your foundation as you normally would.

The genius behind this product is that it fills in all those little lines and pores that prevent your face from looking flawless. Once the lines and pores are filled, it leaves a smooth, even base for your foundation (or powder if you're more of a minimalist). No longer will your foundation sink into those little fine lines.

Seriously, this stuff is life-changing. I've done enough damage to my skin (thanks to years of sunbathing sans sunscreen - I know, shame on me!) that some fine lines are beginning to appear. But with a little primer every morning, you'd never know it. I will forever be thankful to Smashbox for this product!

Come and get it!

I headed to my local ULTA this past weekend to hit up their winter clearance sale (up to 85% off - a seriously fabulous sale). After walking around the store a few times, I came across a shelf that made my heart race - the beauty-buy of the month. ULTA has partnered exclusively with Smashbox to offer an amazing deal. The Backstage Beauty Basics Kit contains nine of Smashbox's top products: the ever-fabulous Photo Finish Foundation Primer (if you aren't familiar with this product, sit tight - I plan to talk about it in an upcoming post in the very near future), Emulsion Lip Exfoliant (for lips as soft as buttah!), Layer Lash Primer, That's a Wrap Mascara, Cream Eyeliner Duo, Blush/Softlights Duo, Fusion Eye Shadow, Lip Gloss, and an eyeliner brush.

Aside from the great products, the best part of the kit is the price! You can score all these products for just $60 - instead of the $185 it normally would cost you. What a deal, indeed! Of course, this deal won't last forever, so I suggest you run to your local ULTA (or check them out online at http://www.ulta.com/) before it's too late!

As a side note, if you do head into the store in the next few days, be sure to take advantage of the Buy One Get One sale on many of the drugstore brand products - Maybelline, Revlon, Almay and more!

Love those lips...

I'm a gloss-a-holic. I love the way lip gloss looks, feels, and sometimes, even smells! In fact, in the last few years, my gloss collection has more than doubled. As a typical makeup junkie, I have certain high-end brands that I adore - Stila, NARS, Lancome (I could go on and on). But seriously, I can't afford to support my gloss habit at $20 a pop.

So in my financially-strapped times, I head to my local drugstore to scout for new products. Honestly, more often than not, I'm sorely disappointed with what I pick out (an example that comes to mind is Sonia Kashuk's gloss - I was not impressed).

However, I recently scored a fabulous find in Maybelline's Lip Polish. I chose a medium pink shade with a hint of salmon, aptly named "Girly Pink." For only $5.49, I figured it was worth a shot.

Worth a shot, it was indeed! The gloss is creamy and smooth, and just sheer enough. The color isn't too garish, as I initially worried it might be. Rather, it's the perfect shade of...well, girly pink. It has zero tackiness, and some serious shine power. And with a sleek design, it looks more like Clinique's Glosswear for Lips than Maybelline.


I assure you, this gloss will not disappoint. And at only $5.49 per tube, you can easily afford to own all 14 shades.

Let's talk about eyes...

I love eyeshadow. With one sweep across your lid, your look is transformed. Smoky, natural, avant garde - the possibilities are endless!

But what I hate most about eyeshadow is how it inevitably will end up creeping up into the crease of your eyelid, leaving an unsightly line.

That all changed when I discovered Urban Decay's Primer Potion. I happened upon this product by utter and complete chance (and thank God I did!). My mom ordered my Christmas present from Sephora, complete with a free sample gift bag - 8 or 9 samples, including the Primer Potion. I was slightly skeptical about the primer when I saw it in the bag. Pssshhht, I thought, I've used primers before, and they never work as well as they say they do. The next morning, I gave it an obligatory try.

By the end of that day, I was in awe. My shadow was in still in place, crease free, looking as lustrous as it did when I applied it 12 hours prior! By the end of the week, I was a proud owner of the full-size version!
If you wear eyeshadow, I strongly urge you to try this product. At $14, it's not going to bankrupt you. And nothing is worse than the "crease," so if it means spending a little cash to prevent it, so be it.