Oscar-winning film-maker Peter Jackson is to head a major government review of the Film Commission - a body he once accused of making poor funding decisions.

The appointment was announced today by Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Chris Finlayson - with Jackson saying the review was timely in a rapidly changing international movie climate.

David Court, head of screen business at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, would work with Jackson on the review. The pair will  examine the Commission's legislation and constitution, its functions, powers and finances.

"The NZ Film Commission is a vital and indispensable component of our film industry," Jackson said.

"I'm looking forward to making positive and constructive suggestions to ensure it remains effective in what is a rapidly changing international movie climate."

He and Mr Court planned to consult with a number of local film makers for the review.

Mr Finlayson said the review would look at the challenges facing the Commission in a rapidly-changing domestic and international film industry context.

Key issues were how the commission could help the film industry meet New Zealand's cultural content objectives and reach a domestic and international audience.

The Film Commission was set up by statute in 1978 and the law has not been changed since. It has an annual budget of around $25 million, with money coming from the government, lottery board grants and other income. It provides loans and equity financing to New Zealand film-makers and helps market their movies overseas. 

In the past Jackson criticised the commission.

He once alleged it considered firing him from Meet the Feebles, and in 1997 he wrote a critique of the body slamming what he thought was inconsistent decision-making by inexperienced board members.

Just last year John Barnett, the head of South Pacific Pictures, accused the commission of treating the local industry "like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them on bullshit".

Mr Barnett wrote in the screen magazine Onfilm that some of the commission's development schemes were flawed, its funding choices poor and it was unaccountable for its decisions.