In the past, I have really liked Smashbox mascaras. But the company recently overhauled their product line and now offer only 3 mascaras, 1 of which is Full Exposure ($19), a mascara that was made to show up on camera and promises the “biggest, longest” lashes. (Smashbox’s other 2 mascaras are Hyperlash, $21, and Bionic, $19, which I have not tried.)
I bought this mascara because of its full yet tapered brush, and its just-right consistency. But when I applied it, the mascara took on a totally different appearance.The formula’s thickness made my naturally long lashes look thin, stuck-together (but not clumpy), and downright puny. It had no volumizing properties whatsoever, resulting in skinny, brittle-looking, barely-there lashes. And possibly the worst offense: before I was done applying the mascara to my second eye, the first eye had already lost its curl. This mascara can’t hold a curl to save its life! Lashes literally fall flat in seconds. That’s a new record for me.
I have never said this about a mascara before, but my curled, bare lashes actually looked better than they did with this mascara. My natural lashes were thicker-looking (less clumpy) and held a curl.
I was really disappointed. Full Exposure had so much potential: a full yet manageable brush, a formula that seemed to be the right consistency (not too thick, not too thin), a wand that wasn’t overloaded with product when pulled out of the tube, and a rich black pigment. But despite its great features, they added up to a mascara that was a total bust. Especially when compared to Smashbox’s above-average past mascaras, like Lash DNA…why in the world would the brand do away with that product and offer something like this?
A mascara that makes your lashes look worse? This is going straight back to Sephora.