I would give 2 and a half, to be fair, if I could, because if you don't mind some of the elements of the story, as I did, then you'd probably find those scenes effective. You'll see what I mean by the elements I don't care for.
The ideas behind this tale of haunting and murder are so confused and convoluted that the 'guy who knows' is explaining things right up to the end, and it doesn't make for a smooth read. It's as though Masterton is inventing a mythology to suit the things he wants to have happen, and having to re-adjust, fine-tune and re-think all the way. And it still doesn't fit.
Four ghoulish figures are attacking and setting women on fire after sexually-abusing them (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, CAN'T WE LEAVE THE SEX-ABUSE OF WOMEN TO REAL-LIFE TRAUMA AND NOT KEEP INCLUDING IT IN HORROR FICTION? I REALLY DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT TEENAGE GIRLS BEING RAPED, THANK YOU. RICHARD LAYMON IS DEAD, GUYS. LET'S LEAVE ALL THE PRURIENCE-PASSING-FOR-HORROR THERE, SHALL WE?), although there's no earthly reason that this element had to be included in the horror. There's a difference between what we understand as entertainment 'horror' and just plain unpleasant. Terrifying doesn't have to be ugly. And if Masterton really wanted a rape element, why couldn't men have been the victims? It would have been a more original ORIGIN, if you excuse the pun, for the haunting, and yes, guys, it does happen to men sometimes.
Anyway. So there's the murdering figures, one of whom seems to be supernatural but very corporeal. An arson investigator and her daughter find themselves caught up in the mystery, and in danger.
That's where all the tangled ideas start. It's all about Hell (although at least one of the damned doesn't seem to belong there, only being a child in his mom's car when it caught alight - how would that consign him to Hell?) but I won't spoiler. Suffice it to say that the explanation is very confused and nonsensical. Really - it doesn't make any kind of convincing sense.
Also unconvincing are the characterisations. Masterton never seems to get into his characters' heads, which surprised me, his being such an experienced writer. It's as if he's more interested in having them serve his convoluted story than in being real people. I didn't feel even one of them truly come alive, and it's partly to do with their reactions.
For instance, the woman who sees her dog burnt to death in front of her. OK, if you're going to say that she 'found it as devastating as if she'd seen her own child burn to death', then you have to commit to that. She'd be almost catatonic, wouldn't she? Not this lady. There's nothing about her reactions or subsequent behaviour that makes you think she's been through such a terrible experience. If you can't follow through on such hyperbole, don't use it.
The denouement is hilarious. First of all, the three menaces are dispatched in such an ordinary way. The fourth in a way that is so silly and prosaic and ridiculous that you have to ask yourself how much of a threat could he really have been? Why didn't they just do this before? Then the real threats are swept away by a means that could only make me giggle.
All in all, a damp squib of an effort.