MAC Gold Star & Kiss of Stars Kissing Stars Lipstick Reviews & Swatches
Gold Star
MAC Gold Star Kissing Stars Lipstick ($20.00 for 0.1 oz.) is a light-medium, peachy gold with warm undertones and a more frosted, lightly metallized finish. It had less sparkle–though still some–compared to other shades with a much higher shimmer content to it, which I felt gave it more “coverage” and seemed to minimize some of the slip.
It had medium coverage, which didn’t build up much beyond that, but I didn’t experience the product clumping up on itself when built up, so that was a nice change of pace. The texture felt lightly creamy as it went on, and it felt fairly smooth as it was applied as well as when I pressed my lips together after application. It wore well for three hours and felt neither drying nor hydrating. There was some product that sank into my lip lines initially and worsened, becoming more noticeable, over time.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Graham (P, $36.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC In Lust (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Open Kimono (P, $57.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Carine (LE, $36.00) is less shimmery, lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Coconut Macaroon (LE, $17.50) is more shimmery, darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Sugar Sugar (LE, $30.00) is less shimmery, lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Too Faced Angel Tears (LE, $22.00) is more shimmery, lighter (85% similar).
- Urban Decay Fireball (LE, $18.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (80% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty David (DC, $36.00).
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
Gold Star
LELimited Edition. $20.00.
Kiss of Stars
MAC Kiss of Stars Kissing Stars Lipstick ($20.00 for 0.1 oz.) is a very light, warmer pink base that was more translucent paired with flecks of gold and pink sparkle and micro-glitter. It had sheer to semi-sheer coverage–far cry from intense–that didn’t build up well as it had a tendency to clump up, which gave it a more uneven look than it already had to start with.
The only reason the product didn’t look as bad as Asterisk is because the color itself is significantly closer to my natural lip color, so some of the unevenness isn’t screaming for your attention.
While the lipstick felt lightly creamy, emollient and didn’t seem too slippery by feel alone, functionally, the texture did not seem to work as it inhibited application overall. This shade stayed on for two hours or so (from what I could tell) and wasn’t drying over time. As mentioned in the formula overview, it could be “workable” layered over another product–like something matte–like a lip pencil by gently tapping it on top or using a fingertip to pat on some of it on the center of the lips to add shine and light sparkle.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Sephora Sink or Swim (67) (P, $8.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Glamour of Punk (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, cooler, less glossy (85% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Marguerite (LE, $36.00) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Tease Maker (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Greta (LE, $36.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
- MAC Rose Dipped (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery (85% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild A Short Affair (P, $0.99) is less shimmery, lighter, more muted (80% similar).
- NARS Little Princess (P, $26.00) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (80% similar).
- MAC Pretty Please (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, lighter, more muted (80% similar).
- MAC Pink Power (P, $19.00) is less shimmery, 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
Kiss of Stars is the one I swatched on my hand this weekend, then could NOT get the glitter to go away when I tried to wipe it off. I wound up with glitter on both hands and a few sparkles even got on my clothes…just from one little swipe on the back of my hand. These things are total glitter bombs!
These remind me of a lot of things in life. Beautiful, but not very functional. Straight to CCO; do not collect $200.
Actually, I like Kiss Of Stars for a glowy nude lip! I’d definitely use it over my Nyx Coffee SLP, though. But this is one of the 3 “good” ones.
That light pink one looked patchy and clumpy on the back of my hand when I was playing around with these at Ulta. Not that I’d ever wear a shade like this anyway. But it was still interesting to me that 3 of these are clumpy, yet the other 3 look quite nice on me. Like, where was R&D for those other 3??
MAC should have marketed this lipstick as decor / collection piece only. 😆 Buy them because they are pretty and have stars, don’t mess up the pattern using them on your lips.
Putting my crabby hat on: I wonder how many people got suckered into early purchase of this crap? I think MAC should do away with their insane holiday collections, but as long as they can find an angle for people to buy before they can be reviewed, they’ll keep churning garbage like this out. Crabby hat off. I wanted these to be beautiful. Le sigh.
Very disappointing. I really wanted to get the pink one. It still looks beautiful on you but as I won’t be able to swatch in store I will give this a miss based on your review!
This release is so beautiful to look at but so horrible in performance. I am saddened by this.
Hmm – I didn’t think that these would be too great when I saw the swatches. I guess you could use the Gold Star one as a glossy cover over another lipstick if you wanted to.
But overall these are pretty meh.
I’m glad I got Sephora’s Sink or Swim before I saw Kiss of Stars, because I know I would have been a fiend for it.