The new blockbuster “The Hunger Games,” based on the extraordinarily popular book series by Suzanne Collins, deserves piles of awards. Or at least its marketing campaign does. Surely no one at Lionsgate thought that the dystopian novel featuring brutal child-on-child violence would be an easy sell, much less result in one of the highest grossing opening weekends in movie history.

For a non-reader, such as myself, much of the curiosity about “The Hunger Games” comes from its insanely fast rise to pop culture phenomenon. Large chunks of the movie justify this fandom, transferring the interesting characters and social commentary from books to screen.

But there’s also something missing in this film adaptation. While intense and well acted, the franchise starter comes off as relatively light and unaffecting — two words that aren’t often associated with televised child murder.

For the five-ish people uninitiated into the cult of Collins, the story follows Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a young girl living in a desolate near-future dystopia where the extravagantly wealthy Capitol lords over twelve impoverished districts. When she volunteers as “tribute” to save her younger sister from the same fate, she is forced to compete in a government-sponsored fight to the death with other randomly selected youths from other cities.

During her training, Katniss learns how to appease wealthy sponsors and establishes a potential romance with fellow tribute, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). How much of their young love is real and how much is orchestrated for their sadistic viewers is a question for both the characters and the real-life audience.

The build-up to the games themselves is nicely done by director Gary Ross and his co-writers, which include the original author. Some of the satirical elements involving the dystopian capital are intriguingly played out, such as the development of on-screen personas for the wealthy to root and invest in.

The first half of “The Hunger Games” also lets the dread of the situation linger with the characters. Hutcherson, who starts off seemingly naïve, has several quietly intense scenes where he comes to accept his tragic fate.

Much of the film’s power comes from Lawrence, who has risen from indie star to tabloid star seemingly overnight. As she ascends into the deadly game, there’s a true look of terror in her wide eyes, one that sticks with the audience for the rest of the 150-minute running time.

The only time Lawrence’s performance seems off-key is when the script rushes her character through emotions. When she volunteers for her sister or gives a three-finger salute to a fallen competitor, it should be emotional, but both scenes happen so fast the audience has no choice but to move along.

Despite rushing at points, “The Hunger Games” still ends up feeling long, a side effect of the film amping up on both the romance and smart characters making dumb decisions in the last third. Katniss in particular seems to have a death wish, standing too close to explosions and running out in the open.

Not helping are Ross’ jittery cameras. A simple speech by the wealthy Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) is shot with the same hand-held intensity as an action scene from “The Bourne Ultimatum” but without the same skill.

Slight technical qualms can be more easily forgiven if a movie leaves an impact on the audience, and unless you’re an extreme fan, “The Hunger Games” won’t. Its dystopian future is interesting but ultimately childish. The idea of wealthy citizens dressed in extravagant clothes with gaudy hairdos may work on the page, but on the screen, it looks too absurd to be plausible. There’s no sense that this truly is where society may lead.

There’s a lot to like about “The Hunger Games” — the nuanced performances, an intriguing concept, several intense sequences — which might be why it feels disappointing upon reflection. It reaches for intellectual spectacle but lacks the spark or punch to reach its goal. It aims high, which makes its fall feel harder.

Or, to make the cliche food reference, the film could have been fine Italian cuisine, but ends up as a plate of Olive Garden fare.