I laughed a lot reading this. It helps to be at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter, certainly, but you've made this accessible to people who aren't, either, which is awesome. My only complaint is that this is just slightly one-dimensional humor-wise. That is to say, every joke is basically "this is X Jarmusch film, it is basically the same as all his other films, it is awesome, you are stupid." Now, there's no real problem with this as it works extremely well (at least in my own opinion), and I would actually advise against adding a couple random jokes to change it up because it dilutes the aforementioned "main joke." This minor problem is just inherent when you do an article like this, and it is minor, so don't worry about it.
A few tweaks I do suggest:
Remove the whole "film critics orgied to this brilliant movie" thing, because you stop with that joke after the second film anyway, and it just seems like some vulgar/random thing some IP would do/say, not to mention that it dilutes article's "main joke" ever so slightly.
Make the phrase "you are not worthy" at the end of the introduction its own paragraph. It's minor, but effective in getting your point across.
Make a little more of the whole "big name actors in ironic roles" thing. From what I understand from my friend Sergei Coffee and Cigarettes is nothing but big-name actors in semi-ironic to ironic roles; make more mention of that.
Jim Jarmusch is a brilliant auteur filmmaker. Perhaps you, and two of your friends (one of which must be foreign) should travel across a vast geographic distance for no other reason than to see one of his films, except you are not smart enough to appreciate said film.
Prose and formatting:
Some of the grammar is a little awkward, so perhaps proofread this and rewrite a couple-three sentences for clarity. Also, in the beginning paragraph, there should be dashes instead of commas isolating the phrase "and the chances are you have not because..." because it is somewhat paranthetical.
They're all adequate, and support the text nicely, plus the captions are good. However, I think they're just a tad bit too small. This article really isn't "image-based" in its humor (though it doesn't have to be), and as a result you really can't get more than about 7 points for this. Not that that's a bad thing--call it another inherent flaw--but yeah.
Higher than the average, because I really enjoyed this.
Just give this a little bit o' polish, and you may have a feature on your hands.