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.

Top Dupes

View Swatches View All Dupes

Tom Ford Beauty Graham (P, $36.00) is more shimmery, darker, 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).
MAC In Lust (LE, $19.50) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
Tom Ford Beauty Open Kimono (P, $54.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
Tom Ford Beauty Carine (LE, $36.00) 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).

View Swatches

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

Product

7.5

Pigmentation

Texture

6.5

Longevity

Application

69%

Total

We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Sephora Beautylish Ulta Nordstrom More

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.

Top Dupes

View Swatches View All Dupes

Sephora Sink or Swim (67) (P, $8.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
MAC Rose Dipped (LE, $19.50) is less shimmery (85% similar).
MAC Tease Maker (LE, $19.50) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (85% similar).
Tom Ford Beauty Greta (LE, $36.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
MAC Glamour of Punk (LE, $19.50) is less shimmery, cooler, less glossy (85% similar).
Tom Ford Beauty Marguerite (LE, $36.00) is less shimmery, darker, warmer (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, $19.50) is less shimmery, lighter, more muted (80% similar).
MAC Pink Power (P, $19.50) is less shimmery, warmer (80% similar).