As u/RomanItalianEuropean says, local landowners had very much been incorporated into Roman government by the fifth century, their wealth forcing them to serve as tax collectors. Moreover, they were obliged to make up for shortfalls in tax with money from their own purse. Aristocrats often joined the church (giving up half their property in the process) in order to dodge this duty. In many ways, the problem with the late Roman state was that it was too oppressive, not that it was weak.

'Feudal' is a term that people are often quite careful to bandy around with regard to the Early Middle Ages and Late Antiquity. If we are to ascribe the origins of feudalism to any regime though, it must be to the Romans, not the barbarians of the fifth century. Diocletian's reforms had turned coloni (tenant farmers) into what would become known as serfs. They became legally subject to their landlords and many had to do work on their landlords' land, and would be punished if they tried to leave the land they themselves farmed. Despite this threat, many did run away. Some became Bagaudae, rebels against the state. According to one Gallic rhetorician:

'Inexperienced farmers sought military garb; the plowman imitated the infantryman, the shepherd the cavalryman, the rustic ravager of his own crops the barbarian enemy.'

Others, however, took a different escape. Salvian writes:

'So the poor are despoiled, the widows sigh, the orphans are oppressed, until many of them, born of families not obscure, and liberally educated, flee to our enemies that they may no longer suffer the oppression of public persecution. They doubtless seek Roman humanity among the barbarians, because they cannot bear barbarian inhumanity among the Romans. And although they differ from the people to Whom they flee in manner and in language; although they are unlike as regards the fetid odor of the barbarians' bodies and garments, yet they would rather endure a foreign civilization among the barbarians than cruel injustice among the Romans.'

The implication then seems to be that the peasantry often welcomed the barbarians. That said, the practice of serfdom survived into the Early Middle Ages. Barbarian leaders often retained many aspects of Roman administration, so it wasn't like they were liberating coloni wherever they went.

Returning to your question, what about the landowners? On the one hand, aristocrats' standards of living certainly decline in the fifth century. The great villas fell into ruin in Britain, Gaul and eventually Italy. Landowners were clearly not as prosperous as they once were. It is sometimes suggested that this sense of decline in their fortunes may have led them to support new barbarian rulers, who did not demand the same taxes or public duties. Nevertheless, it was not simply a matter of choosing between central Roman government and barbarian rule. Local aristocracies were certainly capable of establishing their own governments, as this passage from Zosimus indicates:

'the barbarians from across the Rhine, who now attacked in force, reeduced the inhabitants of Britain and some of the Celtic tribes to the point of throwing off Roman rule and living independently, without further submission to Roman laws. So the Britons took up arms and facing danger for their own safety they freed their cities from the barbarians who threatened them; and all Armorica and the other provinces of Gaul followed the British example and freed themselves in the same way, expelling their Roman governors and setting up their own administrations as best they could.'

Elsewhere, Zosimus attributes this to the 'carelessness in administration' of Constantine III, so there certainly is an argument that the Britons and Gauls became militarised and rejected Roman rule due to the Rome's failure to provide security. In terms of archaeology, Guy Halsall notes a militarisation of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy in the fifth century, based partly on a massive increase in the number of well-dressed men buried with knives. A similar pattern may be observed in Britain with finds of military-style belt buckles at civilian sites. As we can see, however, this militarisation did not mean submitting to the barbarians. Eventually, some definitely did submit to barbarian rulers; Sidonius Apollonaris and his family are a good example of Gallo-Roman aristocrats accepting Frankish and Visigothic kings. It's worth pointing out though that Sidonius had once been an enthusiastic supporter of the Roman state, so it seems more likely that he was accepting the status quo rather than actively rejecting Rome.

More importantly, it isn't very useful to hold the same dichotomy visible in the writings of Salvian. For a century before the Western Empire fell, it had depended on thousands of 'barbarian' soldiers. Barbarians such as Stilicho and Ricimer had effectively ruled the Western Empire. While the establishment of barbarian kingdoms within the Roman world certainly did have a significant effect of the political, social and cultural character of that world, a lot of things didn't change. Many aristocrats kept their estates intact, retained their power in the church and continued to speak Latin.

Secondary Sources John F. Drinkwater, Peasants and Bagaudae in Roman Gaul Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire Stuart Laycock, Britannia: The Failed State Penny McGeorge, Late Roman Warlords

In light of the former's recent passing, I'll mention that Barbarians by Terry Jones and Alan Ereira provides an excellent, if very short, introduction to some of these matters.