Stream in HD   Download in HD


Cameron's Closet

Cameron's Closet

A father who experiments with his sons psychokinetic powers, is unaware that these experiments release a demon from hell, which lives in his sons closet, preparing to take over the young boys soul.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:88 minutes
  • Release:1988
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:demon,   psychic,   mayan,  

A father who experiments with his sons psychokinetic powers, is unaware that these experiments release a demon from hell, which lives in his sons closet, preparing to take over the young ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Cameron's Closet 1988 [Hyperdrive25]Other3344547.25 MB
Download   Camerons.Closet.1988.DVDRip.XviD.AC3-EBXDVDRip3528942.87 MB
Download   Camerons.Closet.1988.DVDRip.XviD.AC3-EBXDVDRip4626942.87 MB
Download   Camerons.Closet.1988.DVDRip.XviD.AC3-EBXDVDRip3651942.87 MB

Cameron's Closet torrent reviews

Panayiotis P (fr) wrote: One of the more memorable, sweeping zombie films seen in years..

sinisteris t (gb) wrote: Not good at all. 3.7/10. C-. Don't watch this

Ryan H (de) wrote: With a 1 1/2 star rating, it probably seems like I hated every second of the film. But that's not true. I was highly aggravated because it's such a good idea ruined by a horrible writer. The direction is good and the animation works, but in the end, what was the point? I liked that he had no gravity on the ship throughout the film. Good call. So the man obviously did some research. But I didn't like that his characters seemed to have no place in this film. It would make sense if it was satirical, but what is it satirizing? Everyone is just so laid back and apathetic, but I didn't know why. Perhaps he was saying people as a whole were turning into jerks who didn't really care about anything anymore, but he had no reference to go off of. Casey Cook had been working hard her whole life to be able to go to Mars one day, and this is finally her dream come true. But everything is taken so lightly by her. I just never fully believed her, mainly because she seemed more interested in her new relationship than with her finally getting to live her dream. Then you have Charlie who doesn't seem smart enough in any sense to be on that ship (or old enough). And the director set the film just 5 years after it came out. It's set in 2015, and we have a redneck president (an old Bush joke, I'm guessing, from when he first wrote it), a person at NASA who doesn't really care about the safety of the crew, and a television crew who like to point out how bored they are by the story. Can Marslett please point out why he decided to have everything like this? Couldn't he make one line that states that this is what he sees from the upcoming generation to take over things? Marslett also uses things just because it works for the moment, such as the Casey asking Charlie to swim, and when she gets in he doesn't join and she gets offended and walks away. Everything is so sudden. He never takes his time. Even in the beginning she refuses to shake his hand and make things better after he apologizes for offending her, then the next scene she's happy and flirty with him. Just like that. It's just so frustrating because a mumblecore that's also sci-fi that's also a cartoon is such a good idea. And when you have Mark Duplass you gotta let him do his thing, but you also have to give him a line that makes him fit in the situation. The movie might be entertaining in parts and have it's moments, but without any true motivation it just falls flat on its face. It's a shame, really.

Anthony L (us) wrote: RocknRolla is an enjoyable enough film but I think the reason it's so easy to watch is because you've seen it all before, it's like bumping into an old friend. There is absolutely nothing original or profound about it, which I find annoying, but the cast is likable, likable enough for you not to hate it. Easy/lazy viewing, a masterpiece compared to Revolver and if I'm being honest, I would like to see another film starring the 'Wild-bunch' but I doubt very much that it's going to happen!

Tricia J (de) wrote: This movie was ok, a bit confusing but still was able to watch it and finally get what was going on, lol. Could probably have been better:)

Mickey M (ag) wrote: I have been a professional wrestling fan for 24 years, have been to numerous shows (mostly WWF/WWE), met many top stars of the business and was the Grand Prize winner of a WWE SummerSlam sweepstakes back in 2006. I have seen a lot of shows and movies which are based in the world of professional wrestling where wrestling is treated as a legitimate (when those in the business were publicly saying that professional wrestling is real, not fake). This movie tries, and fails, to mix that with the true reality of the business. "Gordie Boggs" (David Arquette, who was given the WCW World Heavyweight Championship during this movie's promotion when it hit theaters) and "Sean Dawkins" (Scott Caan) are professional wrestling fanatics who deal with people that tease them about their favorite form of entertainment. They even have to deal with the ones who bring up the one word that fans and those in professional wrestling have been trying to erase when talking about professional wrestling -- fake (staged is a more accurate term for what you see in the ring. There are just too many injuries that wrestlers have to deal with on a daily basis for it to be fake). The two idolize the World Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Champion "Jimmy King" (Oliver Platt) and know everything about the man. And the two can't stop talking about getting to see their hero in person when the two attend a live televised event featuring "King" defending the championship against top contender "DDP" Diamond Dallas Page (the real-life WCW World Heavyweight Champion at the time). When King loses the title to and banned for life from the company by head WCW promoter "Titus Sinclair" (Joe Pantoliano wearing an obvious bad, long-haired wig), who orchestrated the screw-job against the man he discovered about 14 years ago, the two friends go on a search to find their idol, and quickly find out that what they believe to be the truth about him is far from it. However, they still help him get back up on his feet and prepare to regain the title he lost. I have to say that, even though I am in the target audience of this film, I am highly disappointed in it. The first problem, which is evident within the first 45 seconds of the movie, is the writing. The dialogue is pretty horrible. The performances aren't that great either. Another major problem with this movie is that the character development is horrible. We have a total of six fictional characters in the cast, with a good chunk of the WCW roster rounding out the cast. The fictional characters are barely to somewhat developed and are poorly written. You also get one of the worst acted movies I've ever seen. The wrestlers are given little to no dialogue for the most part, and are just there. The scenes where wrestlers are given lines are extremely brief, and their lines are even briefer. If you ask me, the people behind the movie insulted the wrestlers with the way they were written into the movie. I felt that there was no chemistry between "Sasha", a WCW Nitro Girl, and "Boggs". Their relationship was forced, and poorly expanded. Platt was a joke as a professional wrestler in my opinion. If you ask me, if "King" were a real wrestler, he would never make it past mid-card status. And if he was given a title in reality, it would be a lower title like the United States Heavyweight Championship or a short reign with the World Tag Team Championship. Even his in-ring gear was pathetic looking. "Sinclair" was only slightly better, but, as a wrestling character, would have fit better in the wrestling minor leagues called independents, which perform only around whatever city or town they are based out of and are a lot more lower in budget than WCW was. To give the movie some authenticity, we get to see some matches that are supposedly taking place on basic cable and Pay-Per-View television. For some reason, it appeared that the "TV shows" were taking place in smaller venues than we are lead to believe. The arena crowd didn't have a realistic feel, and felt like they were just following directions. The matches shown were chopped up and edited together horribly if you ask me. In fact, the entire movie wasn't edited together nicely. Another problem, to add to the authenticity of the TV shows, real-life WCW commentators Tony Schiavone and "The Professor" "Iron" Mike Tenay were shown calling the action like they did in WCW (Schiavone has gone back to sports radio since WCW was purchased and eventually shut down by World Wrestling Entertainment, and Tenay now works for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling). Schiavone and Tenay appeared very stiff during their brief moments on screen, and their words appeared to be more scripted than they would on a real broadcast. When it comes to special effects, this movie was very average. The sounds of bodies slamming on the ring mat and punches and slaps hitting their targets didn't sound anything like what they actually do. I specifically remember during one match, one of the wrestlers is sent hard to the mat, and it was more than obvious that the sound of his body landing was edited in. One thing that worked was the soundtrack. All the songs were big hits by big stars in the music world in 2000. One song, which was used as Arquette's theme music when he promoted the movie during WCW telecasts, was a remake of a classic Twisted Sister song from the late 1980's that was only heard during the closing credits. To my fellow wrestling fans, I would say, if you come across it on the HBO channels, check out "Bodyslam" if you want a good wrestling movie. This one is passable.

Gabriele M (de) wrote: Sam: "There's all these words for a woman who doesn't want to have sex: frigid, uptight, cold, icy. But can you like even think of one word for a man that doesn't want to have sex?"Danny: "Dead?"Film semplicemente delizioso. Colonna sonora degna di nota. Sapevatelo.

aiden t (nl) wrote: Anthony Hopkins gives a legendary performance as everyone's favorite president. This is a good history lesson for those interested. Even if the events depicted are not entirely true.

Tracy B (jp) wrote: really gory what else can i say

Joshua L (nl) wrote: i love seeing some cast members from dawn of the dead in this film. Tom savini rules in this flick. I just got the poster and it kicks ass like its 1981

Amy M (de) wrote: I found this at the library and had never heard of it. I don't think it's aged very well, and maybe it was better when it came out? Mildly interesting I guess, and Shirley MacLain was good, as you'd expect. Wouldn't watch this one again.

Edgar C (it) wrote: From IMDB's Trivia Section:"After screening this film, Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art Theater in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, was charged with and convicted of possessing and exhibiting an obscene film. He appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, which overturned the convictions, ruling that the film was not obscene. In a concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart made his famous pronouncement concerning what was pornography: "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)."When I saw Godard's A Married Woman (1964), I thought it was the first film to portray the intimacy of an affair from such a passionate and human point of view, like a humble love letter to the irrationalities of the soul and the pleasures of the flesh.Naturally, I was wrong.The controversy that Les Amants achieved in such a conservative decade like the 50s (that is not a criticism) was just a secondary consequence. I always find it interesting to talk about the perceptions of on-screen sexuality considering the decade as a dependent variable, taking the films as independent variables, because they are simply done in the way they are, assuming complete independence from the censors (I take this assumption because of the intentions of the scandalous and equally revolutionary New Wave movements all around the world, especially France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Japan). Our perception of what constitutes pornography or obscenity is entirely dependent on our moral formation, which is dictated by society since your birth. Our life and human interactions are an endlessly, nonstop, complex amalgamation of teachings, stimula, free will, impositions and own judgment. What is taken today as maybe daring or bold, even tame, was considered obscene 50 years ago: that's what I find fascinating. That's the topic that opens a debate that I would like to call: "Society's permissive nature is causing its own destruction VS. Society is progressively more open-minded to alternate means of expression". Maybe we're in the middle but always want to take one extreme side: "I am either black or white". So, between the two things that I mentioned in the VS. showdown, which one would better explain our increasing tolerance to the portrayal of violence, sex and profanity in mainstream releases?So what constitutes obscenity or pornography? Is it the graphic content or is it the entire connotation? Was it made to arouse or is there a full story behind that is not seeking opportunities to portray sex at every corner? Or is it both? That takes me to the flawless, thought-provoking, extraordinary, iconoclast erotic masterpiece In the Realm of the Senses (1976). I remember this guy saying: "Stop with this pornography vs. art debate! It is obviously both!" I loved how this person was convinced of his own perception being the truth and nothing but the truth, as if taking a middle stance was so easy. Of course, I entirely disagreed. The graphic content was there, but the film's aims were entirely different: to explore the human condition through a true-story examination of physical extremes attached to a human man-woman relationship with a meaningful political background to subliminally suggest the impositions of human behavior. shima was a genius.Cinema is an art form, and therefore, all of its stories are too regardless of how they are portrayed, from heartfelt dramas to exploitation of any kind. Malle is no provocateur - which still would make him an artist in the full definition of the word. However, he believes in the power of imagery. A correctly placed image can communicate too much. If you employ the basic aspects of storytelling as effective companions, then you have a winner. Cinematography here couldnt be better: in fact, it is one of the best in the history of cinema, I dare to say. The camera is a master of the characters' fate, including their future uncertainty. That's precisely the film's most brilliant twist: Jeanne is a woman who ends up with no regrets, but yet with a disturbing self-discovery of her persona, completely afraid about the future, but eager to know what the future has prepared for both, even if it is disaster.Les Amants is as honest as the straightforwardness of the title. There is no hidden message or implied allegory. It is a story about lovers, about how everything began, and the frustrating events preceding such a steamy, torrid affair. I was in love with the imagery even if I never sympathized with what I was seeing from a moral point of view. I believe in faithfulness being a component of true love, and I believe in the internal and external stability that faithfulness brings along. God bless the life of Jeanne Moreau, an extraordinary actress who had the guts to do what nobody would have done in commercial cinema.96/100

Harry W (de) wrote: Famous as the film that won many Academy Awards over Citizen Kane, considered to be the greatest film of all time, How Green Was My Valley had to be seen by me so that I could decide which was the superior film.How Green Was My Valley is a clear example of a very dated film. It is a lot more relevant in its time than today and maintains the slow pace and older movie themes which aren't as present today in cinema. And it has a very classical style and feel to it, for better or for worse. I'm sure that people who really appreciate old cinema are likely to truly enjoy How Green Was My Valley, but modern viewers aren't likely to feel the same effect.How Green Was My Valley deals with old subject matter and it goes about doing it over the course of a long film which feels a lot longer than it actually is. It isn't assisted by the fact that the pace of the film is also very slow and takes a long time to do little. I know that's the norm for films of the time, but in comparison to the superior films that were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, I would say that How Green Was My Valley is certainly not the most deserving. Also, How Green Was My Valley is more interesting when it focuses on the bigger picture of its story and the way that the lowering in wages for coal miners affects the town as a whole instead of simply a small group of people. I know that films need to have central characters, but How Green Was My Valley presents a somewhat large scale theme which it fails to capitalise on and instead attempts to keep its focus on the smaller picture. And when the film attempts to dramatise the issues that are happening, the musical score of the film feels a little too lighthearted to really capitalise on the drama that it attempts to deal with. How Green Was My Valley could have been made better by enhanced dramatisation of events through a more hard hitting musical score to match the gritty look of the setting and the grey scale of the film. All in all, it isn't as atmospheric as it should be and its lighthearted musical score and focus on a child's journey through it all fails to really capitalise on the harsh reality of the story. All in all, John Ford is able to capture the dramatic scale of the big picture in How Green Was My Valley at times, but the film is largely dedicated to its characters who themselves aren't all too interesting. Frankly, John Ford's Academy Award winning treatment of How Green Was My Valley isn't as great as it is cracked up to be, and while he gives the film his all, it is a bit too maudlin for its own good. Since John Ford is known for creating firm, dramatic and gritty material on films such as The Searchers or The Grapes of Wrath, How Green Was My Valley doesn't capture his best talents in terms of storytelling.But it does capture John Ford's keen eye for imagery because How Green Was My Valley is a great visual experience. The setting of the film is very convincing since the scenery has its natural appeal, and the production design of the film is great too. How Green Was My Valley brings its story to life well enough to make it seem thoroughly convincing, and its scenery is beautiful. And thanks to some Academy Award winning cinematography, the scale of everything is captured very well. So although the story isn't the finest or the most entertaining as well as being slow and long, How Green Was My Valley at least makes itself feel true to the real world events and stays to the roots of the novel well enough with a strong script. Although How Green Was My Valley isn't the finest form of entertainment, it does capture the true dramatic nature of everything that is happening as it affects a family and begins to damage the innocence of the young Huw Morgan as he gets dragged into it all. As a family friendly film, How Green Was My Valley is fairly well composed and captures the innocence of a child as it becomes degraded more and more by the unfair politics in his small town. And it is well acted enough to encourage the character focused aspect of the film.The standout actor in How Green Was My Valley is Roddy McDowall because he has to carry the entire film on his small 10 year old shoulders as the main character of the film. His line delivery is great and despite his young age he faces the material very maturely and doesn't degrade it with childish sentiment. How Green Was My Valley is notable for being the film which proved very early on precisely how talented actor Roddy McDowall was.Donald Crisp also gives a fine supporting performance in How Green Was My Valley, one which won him the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. He captures the dramatic nature of the story as his character comes into direct impact with the drama as Gwilym Morgan, the father of the main character and one of the biggest victims of the events that How Green Was My Valley covers. Donald Crisp gives a fine performance in How Green Was My Valley.Sara Allgood also gives a fine effort in How Green Was My Valley where she interacts with all the other cast members well.So although How Green Was My Valley is a dated film and is not superior to many films it beat for the 1941 Academy Award for Best Picture, as a tale about how unfair labour laws affected people during the depression, How Green Was My Valley is well directed and visually terrific, as well as very well acted.

Abdullah A (es) wrote: Ok, so this is the film. The first half or so is very choppy, going from this to that in an instant and you're just like "Wait, what?" and I feel like they could've done a lot better with the introduction of one of the characters (because the character comes off as bratty and annoying even though the character isn't). There was also a big action sequence that I felt made very little sense (keep Superman: Doomsday in mind and you'll get what I mean). The second half is a lot better, especially towards the end. In fact, if they removed pretty much all of the first half, the second half would have been a really great film at about 8 or even a 9 out of 10. Batman and Superman are portrayed pretty good, and you'll enjoy when they are on screen. The animation is good, but I feel like there were missed opportunities here and there, like certain angles and ways they could've done things that would've had more of an impact emotionally. Overall, I'd say a 6/10.