MAC Asterisk & Destined for Stardom Kissing Stars Lipstick Reviews & Swatches
Asterisk
MAC Asterisk Kissing Stars Lipstick ($20.00 for 0.1 oz.) has a blackened purple base with a mixture of bluish-violet, purple, and lighter blue sparkle and glitter throughout. It was appalling bad in application, and it lived up to… none of its claims; it didn’t evenly distribute color, it wasn’t opaque, and the texture was smooth.
I don’t know who let this one escape the factory, but it’s not a real surprise as every comparable shade (and they’re all quite close in color/composition) is about as poorly done. As cool as glittery lipstick has the potential to be, let’s dial down releasing shades not out of alpha testing.
It had semi-sheer coverage that didn’t build up well, as the more I tried to build it up, the more uneven the underlying color looked and clumpier the sparkles/glittery bits became, which resulted in an visibly uneven, more noticeably textured (though I wouldn’t call it gritty or painfully rough) the product looked on my lips. To add insult to injury, the color seeped into my lip lines, didn’t adhere to my inner lip area, and had worn down within two and a half hours of wear. I guess the nicest thing I could say about the formula was that it didn’t dry my lips out.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Too Faced Trampula (LE, $22.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Reverb (P, $18.00) is less shimmery, warmer, less glossy (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Monarchy (P, $18.00) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- Ciate Fortune (P, $19.00) is darker, warmer, less glossy (80% similar).
- KVD Beauty Televator (P, $22.00) is more shimmery, darker, more pigmented (80% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Trance (LE, $56.00) is brighter (80% similar).
- Maybelline Smoked Silver (P, $7.49).
Formula Overview
$20.00/0.1 oz. - $200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have "intense, ultra-creamy colour payoff" with an "ultra-smooth gliding texture" that has "even colour distribution and payoff." Just in case you weren't totally on-board with the idea that MAC meant for these to be pigmented, they also go on to describe these as having "an explosion of colour."
The pigmentation varied from shade to shade but over half of the shades had far under full coverage and none had full coverage. The formula struggles to apply evenly, as there's enough slip that the color seems to slide around and sometimes the glitter/sparkle clumped on itself when I attempted to build up coverage. A few shades looked visibly uneven and gritty on my lips, though I'll say they didn't feel gritty like you'd expect--a little texture at times but fairly smooth overall.
The texture was fairly smooth, emollient without being heavy or thick, and they were thinner (without being clingy), yet they had trouble adhering to parts of my lips, especially the inner areas. I was reminded of this line from the movie Clueless, "No, she's a full-on Monet... From far away, it's OK, but up close, it's a big old mess." The shiny finish coupled with lots of sparkle and shimmer--all reflecting light strongly--give the illusion that they aren't so bad from afar (like six feet away), but they are wretched if you look in the mirror (like a foot away).
The only way to make these "work" would be to layer them on top of a better-applying lipstick or lining lips underneath first and then using them to add sparkle. They had a subtle vanilla scent but no discernible taste.
These are also extremely similar to the Tom Ford Lip Sparks from an ingredient list perspective (they are almost the same) as well as from a performance perspective. (Both brands are owned by Estee Lauder.)
Browse all of our MAC Kiss of Stars Lipstick swatches.
Ingredients
Asterisk
LELimited Edition. $20.00.
Destined for Stardom
MAC Destined for Stardom Kissing Stars Lipstick ($20.00 for 0.1 oz.) has a sheer, almost translucent base with a moderate amount of both finer and larger particle iridescent sparkle and glitter. It translated into more of a bluish-silver effect with multi-colored flecks of sparkle at certain angles. If you needed to cast the most dastardly villain in a beauty-themed movie, this might be the candidate.
It clumped up so badly that it felt like patches of sand in places. It had semi-sheer pigmentation–at best, when swatched on m y arm–that translated from barely-there to semi-sheer on my lips as the product didn’t apply evenly. When I tried just a single pass of product, it was still sheer, uneven, and prone to sinking into my lip lines. Because it was supposed to have “intense” pigmentation, I tried to build up the coverage but failed miserably.
It had minimal wear time and spent most of the two hours it was on for creeping into my lip lines and separating along them but hey, at least it didn’t dry my lips out! Being generous, the feel of the lipstick going on, at least initially, was smoother than you’d expect, given the amount of shimmer/sparkle that’s visible.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Bolt (LE, $56.00) (100% similar).
- Too Faced Unicorn Tears (DC, $22.00) is more shimmery, more pigmented, cooler (90% similar).
- Bite Beauty Violet Icing (P, $24.00) is less shimmery, more pigmented, less glossy (85% similar).
- Urban Decay White Lie (P, $18.00) is less shimmery, less pigmented (85% similar).
- MAC Eloquent Air (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
- Anastasia Blizzard (LE, $20.00) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (80% similar).
- Fenty Beauty Slush Fund (LE, ) is darker, warmer, less glossy (80% similar).
- Guerlain #999 (P, $36.00) is less shimmery, lighter, less pigmented (80% similar).
- MAC Pearly One (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, warmer (80% similar).
- MAC Funfetti Cake (LE, $17.50) is more pigmented, warmer (80% similar).
Formula Overview
$20.00/0.1 oz. - $200.00 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have "intense, ultra-creamy colour payoff" with an "ultra-smooth gliding texture" that has "even colour distribution and payoff." Just in case you weren't totally on-board with the idea that MAC meant for these to be pigmented, they also go on to describe these as having "an explosion of colour."
The pigmentation varied from shade to shade but over half of the shades had far under full coverage and none had full coverage. The formula struggles to apply evenly, as there's enough slip that the color seems to slide around and sometimes the glitter/sparkle clumped on itself when I attempted to build up coverage. A few shades looked visibly uneven and gritty on my lips, though I'll say they didn't feel gritty like you'd expect--a little texture at times but fairly smooth overall.
The texture was fairly smooth, emollient without being heavy or thick, and they were thinner (without being clingy), yet they had trouble adhering to parts of my lips, especially the inner areas. I was reminded of this line from the movie Clueless, "No, she's a full-on Monet... From far away, it's OK, but up close, it's a big old mess." The shiny finish coupled with lots of sparkle and shimmer--all reflecting light strongly--give the illusion that they aren't so bad from afar (like six feet away), but they are wretched if you look in the mirror (like a foot away).
The only way to make these "work" would be to layer them on top of a better-applying lipstick or lining lips underneath first and then using them to add sparkle. They had a subtle vanilla scent but no discernible taste.
These are also extremely similar to the Tom Ford Lip Sparks from an ingredient list perspective (they are almost the same) as well as from a performance perspective. (Both brands are owned by Estee Lauder.)
Browse all of our MAC Kiss of Stars Lipstick swatches.
Ingredients
Ugh, awful! I swatched one of these on my hand at the store today and it was very patchy and rather ugly, and then I couldn’t get the glitter off my hand no matter what I did. What a mess!
I love the line: “If you needed to cast the most dastardly villain in a beauty-themed movie, this might be the candidate.”
Obviously I’d prefer that every product be well formulated and worth the money. But when they’re not, your savage reviews are so entertaining, Christine!
Oh, wow. I thought those looked super cute. You’ve just saved my bank account and me from disappointment!
So pretty to look at and so ugly to wear!!
Honestly, even just looking at them in the bullet gives me the shudders. They don’t look like products I’d want to apply to my lips, even if you paid me!
I will say that Destined for Stardom could make kind of a cool retro-futuristic lipstick topper, but that’s not how it’s being marketed, and I certainly wouldn’t make enough use of it to buy it myself.
The actual lipsticks are so pretty to look at that I just want to display them with the caps off. Obviously that’s not going to happen but they sure are eye-catching.
I think these must be the lowest scores I’ve seen in the five-ish years I’ve been a reader! I agree, the concept is great, sad that the execution wasnt.
Beautiful to look at and applies like ’90s drug store makeup!
Oh heavens. LOL!
MAC, no.
Don’t do this to us.
We KNOW you are more than capable of producing decent quality products but do not, DO NOT put out LE items in fancy packaging with pretty embossing that is absolute $&!# and expect us to be so damn gullible.
For shame 🙁
After watching MACah0lic’s live swatches of these, I *knew* how bad 3 out of the 6 were. Like a 6 year old made play lipstick from sparkly glitter dust and vasoline.
And then I have the pleasure of reading your scathing review of 2 of the worst offenders and I’m giggling uncontrollably!
“If you needed to cast the most dastardly villain in a beauty-themed movie, this might be the candidate.”
And: “I don’t know who let this one escape the factory……let’s dial down releasing shades not out of alpha testing.”
But they look so pretty!
I would have loved them both but now I can save the money for something better, and somethinr better then these can’t be hard to find.
Poor beautiful lipsticks! 🙁
Yep, pretty bad. It goes straight to the “Most Disappointing List” for 2019.
Now that I’m done howling at this choice review of an epic fail, the glitter question pops up again. Is this glitter FDA approved? Is it safe to eat? Admittedly, that would not be painful, with a chance of blinding. And isn’t there safe, biodegradable glitter that these cos could/should be using?
The inadequate quality of these products has achieved a new level on your writing. Your descriptions had me cracking up!
Sad to see these performed terribly, the texture on the bullet (perforated grid?) looks similar to Lisa Eldridge’s Plush True Velvet.
No, tell us how you reeeeally feel! 🙂
This must be the most beautiful lipstick (the stars! The glitter!) with the most hideous application I’ve ever seen on here….
All I can think about is the waste. *Why*?
Once again, one has to wonder if anyone at MAC actually TESTS these products or if they just rush them to market with the thinking that “well, the stars look cool and people will buy ANYTHING with our name on it”??? Personally, I find these sorts of colours just ugly but may people like them so it’s a shame these couldn’t be better. The only “positive” about these is your entertaining review!
They’re so pretty – what a shame!
Had a feeling these would be gimmicky. But that silver is so gorgeous in the bullet.
Why, why why couldn’t Asterisk work! Boo hoo!!! I soooo like the color in the tube. And what a shame for all of the star lipsticks. They look SOOOO lovely and just flop. 🙁