POST 1:

• Jumping out of his bed, the first thing he attempted was (...) = Chronologically, this doesn't make sense. He can't attempt to open a door while jumping out of his bed at the same time. So you'd have to use a construction like: "After jumping out of (...)"
• Where would be the fun if not? = The idiom is 'Where is the fun in that?', so: "Where would be the fun in that ?" Of course, what you said isn't wrong, but it will probably jump out at English speakers as a wrongly used expression.
• the camera spying him = Using 'to spy' without the on particle would be weird here. The camera doesn't casually observe/notice Aldo. The camera is there to secretly watch what he is doing. So you need the particle: the camera spying on him.

POST 2:

• And Aldo had taken a clever decision = You wouldn't use the past perfect here. You use the past perfect when you describe an action in the past that was completed before ANOTHER action (or when you stress the duration of something, but that doesn't apply here). For example: "Aldo was able to destroy the camera because he had noticed the protective barrier" or "Aldo had eaten a sandwich before getting there, so he wasn't hungry." In your sentence you don't describe a previous action as much as a simple action in the past. So you'd use the simple past: "And Aldo took a clever decision: if (...)"
• if they were spied = same as before, so spied on
• So, he punched the camera of his room as strongly as he could... but the camera was not only resistant... it was also electrified, so Aldo didn't insist but hit the wall of his prison with rage = This is one hell of a sentence XD You are using a lot of conjunctions (I count 4 + commas) and it makes the sentence hard to read. I think splitting it into two (or even three) separate sentences would be more correct. As in: "So he punched the camera in his room as strongly as he could. But the camera was not only resistant... it was also electrified. That's why Aldo didn't insist any further, and violently hit the wall of his prison instead." It seems more natural, especially because the "so" and the "buts" seemed repetitive and made the sentence extremely long. Although that's maybe more of a comment on narrative style and less on grammar. (You can totally make a sentence with 15 "ands" and "so's" and "or's" after all. It just isn't great to read.)

POST 3:

• I went to the bathroom to piss before to go to bed = before I went to bed if you just describe the actions in chronological order
• held prisoner by some white clothes fetishist clearly angry with shoes = I got it, but to avoid confusion, you should add "who's" after fetishist, just in case a reader would apply "clearly angry with shoes" to the subject of the sentence (= "I")

• I'll cast a glance at it = Correct expression, strange use. "I'll take a look at it" sounds more natural to me, since archaic expressions like that one aren't often used in dialogue.
• all he could see was a large white corridor with doors all along = The idiom "all along" again is correct, but seems strange in this sentence, because the classical use of it is in the sense of "I knew he was cheating on me all along", as in: "all the time". I'm having trouble telling you how to correct it though XD It just seemed off as soon as I read it.

• Well, I guess we have to do with it... = From the French expression "On fera avec" or something like that, I suppose ? Awkward formulation here. The correct idiom is: "We'll have to make do." / "We'll have to make due." (Depending on which side of the linguistic debate you are 8D)

• complication = not wrong, but more idiomatic if you put it in its plural form (so complications)
• stretched out loudly = the tiny linguistic professor in me would shout: 'YOU CANNOT STRETCH LOUDLY', because it's an action that doesn't involve sound (classically), but the tiny literature professor in me would say: 'This is being creative with language', and thus acceptable. Though both would plead for leaving "out" out (haha, word play), because stretching in the sense of extending your limbs (like after a long nap) doesn't need the particle.
• It could reveal useful = literal translation from the French expression "il peut se révéler utile", I think ? It's not used in English. The correct version would be: "It could be useful for us to stick together for now" or "He might reveal himself to be useful" or s'mthing like it.

• But more was needed to stop a determined Aldo = Correct, but very archaic construction. I'd simply say: "But you need more to stop a determined Aldo"